I enjoy re-alignment stuff (even if it's been a quiet few years now). But what I don't enjoy is the "pay the players!" debate.
My question/proposal...is why can't the Olympic model be the solution for this whole fiasco?
If Trevor Lawrence is allowed to profit from his name and likeness, then he gets not just the "normal" compensation of a college athlete (100,000's of dollars for education, food, health care, housing, etc.) but he also can be a Nike sponsor or a Big Bob's Car Lot sponsor and make 100,000s more dollars.
The girls softball team can still get her Title IX compensation for college athletics too (equality) but the "real" cash cows can earn what they deserve in the "open market."
This cleans up the SEC bag man problem. If Big Bob wants Tua to smile on his billboard to sell cars, then he gets that. As it is, Big Bob gives Tua a bag of cash every few weeks and gets nothing for it (except to tell his friends indirectly that he does it).
This also keeps the athletic department budgets from being so out of control. You don't NEED another locker room with video screens, Oregon! The "donor" money is diluted from AD's pockets and budgets and into the players. Big Bob cuts his 100,000 he gives to Alabama because now he's paying Tua 100,000 to sell cars for him.
I'm sure NCAA proponents would argue how hard it would be to have "some players making pennies while others make thousands" and how the agency feeding frenzy would be messy...but you know what? That's the free market. Mike Trout and the fourth middle reliever make different amounts in MLB...and they somehow manage to co-exist on the same team. It might make some "new" problems, sure....but it's kind of like amputating a toe so you don't have an entire body turn septic and die.
Team endorsements would need to trump individual endorsements (Jake Fromm has to wear Georgia's NIKE gear even if he's sponsored by Under Armour).
I sincerely welcome thoughts on why this doesn't solve most of the NCAA's problems.
1. players are not going to play at a place that has an old shipping container for a locker room and dirt for a field so the argument that facilities will not matter is not valid
one could try and argue that players would go to a place with lesser facilities if they were getting $100,000 from a car lot to be on a billboard, bur places that have alumni that can pay $100,000 will have the nicer facilities still
2. not every player is going to get a deal like that so facilities will still matter for those that are not getting offered big money
3. with the transfer rules these days hiw many times does a supporter have to keep paying someone what if that person goes out of business, dies, sells the business or the player is not as good as they thought or the player is a piece of crap off the field and the place paying them does not want to be associated with them
how long until that player is gone in a transfer.....or they are just OK so the person paying decides to pay the next hot high school prospect and leaves them in the cold and they transfer
4. with the transfer rules if a player is really good what stops a donor from one school recruiting him with a better offer to come to their school.....even if you pretend that you put "rules" in place yea good luck with that once the "paid for endorsements" BS starts up things will be out of control
5. do coaches really want to be at the mercy of donors that are paying players for all kinds of stupid stuff.....how in the hell do you recruit while also dealing with "well I have to get back to the loser with the car lot to see if he will match the offer of the other school"
how do you hold a team knowing that a player (with an IQ of about 78 and the financial literacy of a potato) is always out there chasing the next endorsement deal be it keeping the one that got him to your program or chasing the one from a bigger program that now thinks he has proven himself
what coach wants to coach in that environment when your recruiting and team untity depends on having to deal with fickle donors and people cutting checks uncontrolled
6. as stated before the places that already have the top facilities generally have the people that can write checks.....the more those places write checks generally the better they will do on the field and the more checks come as Tshirt fans and Tshirt advertisers pop in and out of the picture
eventually you will have a situation where those teams are able to pay most of their players something and win a whole lot and eventually you will have all but about 15 places that have players saying they no longer want to play those schools because even if those players are getting that (stupid made up poor me BS "pizza money") they will be tired of working hard, playing hard, having to actually go to class only to get the hell beat out of them by about 15 different schools when it comes time to win something meaningful
7. you really think that morons that can barely read and write as it is and that do not give a damn about their education will somehow make less of a mockery of college football if they are getting paid something at 18 or 19 years old
the attrition rate from alcohol poisoning, over dosing, getting killed in a drug deal, driving a fast car off a cliff, or getting taken out for "big gold" or shoes will be through the roof
those players will have a massive target on their back mainly because they will do everything they can to place that target on their back
not to mention how badly they will blow off school before they get kicked out and are broke (or probably in debt for 6x that they ever earned) and now have no career, no piece of paper, one or one and a half years of on the field performance and pro teams taking a hard pass on drafting them or signing them
you could have an ESPN 30 for 30 story 2X a week on the next maurice clarette
the worst part is all the piles of crap that are calling for players to be paid would be the first ones out there crying that the "system gave them money and used them up and spit them out with nothing"
because yea after he made a .01 GPA his first year in 9 hours of classes, crashed his car (that a donor gave him) into a tree and paralyzed his ex GF, got robbed in a sketchy situation where he did not cooperate with the police, partied too much instead of practicing, and almost got wrapped up in a big weed deal "the mean old system just spit him out and no longer cared about him once they were done with him and no one wanted to pay him for anything or give him a job and they would not even give him that education that he really wanted"
"you can't just give CHILDREN large amounts of money and no training on how to handle it and no advice on what to do with it!!!!"
"there should be a safety net for these children to fall back on!!!!!"
7. more than likely in addition to probably 90% of the D1-A programs having the vast majority of their players say they no longer wanted to play the other 10% of the schools you would probably also have a lot of issues at the individual programs too.....players fighting, stabbing and even shooting each other over the idea that one stole the others endorsement deal or one stealing stuff from another and retaliation, cars damages, drive bys, and on and on
you are not going to have 10 or so players out of 85 that are getting paid huge money even if the others are getting that BS "movie date night money" without a lot of issues coming.....all the more so when those players start angling for special treatment or they transfer to a place that will pay the same or better
8. you will have donors that think they can step in and elevate a program fast.... they will not give to the university for facilities or they will reduce that and toss money at big name players and then the coach will have issues with how to make all those horrible personalities and non-matched talent work, while having lesser facilities, players always looking to leave when that big donor realizes his idea is failing or he has a falling out with the coach and it will ruin a lot of those programs.....it can be the 3rd night of the week 30 for 30 on what happened to that program that had all those star players that never did anything and flames out big time
9. the way to clean up the NCAA is to get rid of the morons that place no value on education, get rid of the morons that do not understand the difference between income and profits, get rid of the morons that do not understand the expense universities pay to showcase their talents and put the focus back on education
limit freshman playing, have GPA and credit hours towards a degree requirements to participate, stop trying to be a minor league, stop caring that some people think players should be paid (because they are too stupid ti understand income does not equal profits) and get rid of the athlete non-students and who cares where they end up
(04-14-2019 06:06 AM)micahandme Wrote: [ -> ]I enjoy re-alignment stuff (even if it's been a quiet few years now). But what I don't enjoy is the "pay the players!" debate.
My question/proposal...is why can't the Olympic model be the solution for this whole fiasco?
If Trevor Lawrence is allowed to profit from his name and likeness, then he gets not just the "normal" compensation of a college athlete (100,000's of dollars for education, food, health care, housing, etc.) but he also can be a Nike sponsor or a Big Bob's Car Lot sponsor and make 100,000s more dollars.
The girls softball team can still get her Title IX compensation for college athletics too (equality) but the "real" cash cows can earn what they deserve in the "open market."
This cleans up the SEC bag man problem. If Big Bob wants Tua to smile on his billboard to sell cars, then he gets that. As it is, Big Bob gives Tua a bag of cash every few weeks and gets nothing for it (except to tell his friends indirectly that he does it).
This also keeps the athletic department budgets from being so out of control. You don't NEED another locker room with video screens, Oregon! The "donor" money is diluted from AD's pockets and budgets and into the players. Big Bob cuts his 100,000 he gives to Alabama because now he's paying Tua 100,000 to sell cars for him.
I'm sure NCAA proponents would argue how hard it would be to have "some players making pennies while others make thousands" and how the agency feeding frenzy would be messy...but you know what? That's the free market. Mike Trout and the fourth middle reliever make different amounts in MLB...and they somehow manage to co-exist on the same team. It might make some "new" problems, sure....but it's kind of like amputating a toe so you don't have an entire body turn septic and die.
Team endorsements would need to trump individual endorsements (Jake Fromm has to wear Georgia's NIKE gear even if he's sponsored by Under Armour).
I sincerely welcome thoughts on why this doesn't solve most of the NCAA's problems.
Just to make sure I understand you, are you saying it should be OK for schools, through boosters or apparel sponsors, to pay recruits to attend a particular school? And whichever school is willing to pay the most gets to sign the recruit?
(04-14-2019 08:16 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ] (04-14-2019 06:06 AM)micahandme Wrote: [ -> ]I enjoy re-alignment stuff (even if it's been a quiet few years now). But what I don't enjoy is the "pay the players!" debate.
My question/proposal...is why can't the Olympic model be the solution for this whole fiasco?
If Trevor Lawrence is allowed to profit from his name and likeness, then he gets not just the "normal" compensation of a college athlete (100,000's of dollars for education, food, health care, housing, etc.) but he also can be a Nike sponsor or a Big Bob's Car Lot sponsor and make 100,000s more dollars.
The girls softball team can still get her Title IX compensation for college athletics too (equality) but the "real" cash cows can earn what they deserve in the "open market."
This cleans up the SEC bag man problem. If Big Bob wants Tua to smile on his billboard to sell cars, then he gets that. As it is, Big Bob gives Tua a bag of cash every few weeks and gets nothing for it (except to tell his friends indirectly that he does it).
This also keeps the athletic department budgets from being so out of control. You don't NEED another locker room with video screens, Oregon! The "donor" money is diluted from AD's pockets and budgets and into the players. Big Bob cuts his 100,000 he gives to Alabama because now he's paying Tua 100,000 to sell cars for him.
I'm sure NCAA proponents would argue how hard it would be to have "some players making pennies while others make thousands" and how the agency feeding frenzy would be messy...but you know what? That's the free market. Mike Trout and the fourth middle reliever make different amounts in MLB...and they somehow manage to co-exist on the same team. It might make some "new" problems, sure....but it's kind of like amputating a toe so you don't have an entire body turn septic and die.
Team endorsements would need to trump individual endorsements (Jake Fromm has to wear Georgia's NIKE gear even if he's sponsored by Under Armour).
I sincerely welcome thoughts on why this doesn't solve most of the NCAA's problems.
Just to make sure I understand you, are you saying it should be OK for schools, through boosters or apparel sponsors, to pay recruits to attend a particular school? And whichever school is willing to pay the most gets to sign the recruit?
No. Schools maintain Title IX. Equal scholarship for all male and female athletes, regardless of the revenue they make for the school.
The "only" change is Trevor Lawrence can sign his own sneaker deal, soda deals, local business deals. He would have an agent who organizes and maintains his sponsorships, as pro athletes and Olympians do today. He doesn't get "paid" by the NCAA school, except for the scholarship/housing/food/medical benefits they currently get.
Trevor Lawrence, then, would be making thousands right out of high school and after his blitzkrieg through the NCAA last year, he'd be a millionaire NOW. The NFL can keep their rules about three years out of high school for players. That is irrelevant to this discussion, in this case.
(04-14-2019 08:13 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote: [ -> ]1. players are not going to play at a place that has an old shipping container for a locker room and dirt for a field so the argument that facilities will not matter is not valid
one could try and argue that players would go to a place with lesser facilities if they were getting $100,000 from a car lot to be on a billboard, bur places that have alumni that can pay $100,000 will have the nicer facilities still
2. not every player is going to get a deal like that so facilities will still matter for those that are not getting offered big money
3. with the transfer rules these days hiw many times does a supporter have to keep paying someone what if that person goes out of business, dies, sells the business or the player is not as good as they thought or the player is a piece of crap off the field and the place paying them does not want to be associated with them
how long until that player is gone in a transfer.....or they are just OK so the person paying decides to pay the next hot high school prospect and leaves them in the cold and they transfer
4. with the transfer rules if a player is really good what stops a donor from one school recruiting him with a better offer to come to their school.....even if you pretend that you put "rules" in place yea good luck with that once the "paid for endorsements" BS starts up things will be out of control
5. do coaches really want to be at the mercy of donors that are paying players for all kinds of stupid stuff.....how in the hell do you recruit while also dealing with "well I have to get back to the loser with the car lot to see if he will match the offer of the other school"
how do you hold a team knowing that a player (with an IQ of about 78 and the financial literacy of a potato) is always out there chasing the next endorsement deal be it keeping the one that got him to your program or chasing the one from a bigger program that now thinks he has proven himself
what coach wants to coach in that environment when your recruiting and team untity depends on having to deal with fickle donors and people cutting checks uncontrolled
6. as stated before the places that already have the top facilities generally have the people that can write checks.....the more those places write checks generally the better they will do on the field and the more checks come as Tshirt fans and Tshirt advertisers pop in and out of the picture
eventually you will have a situation where those teams are able to pay most of their players something and win a whole lot and eventually you will have all but about 15 places that have players saying they no longer want to play those schools because even if those players are getting that (stupid made up poor me BS "pizza money") they will be tired of working hard, playing hard, having to actually go to class only to get the hell beat out of them by about 15 different schools when it comes time to win something meaningful
7. you really think that morons that can barely read and write as it is and that do not give a damn about their education will somehow make less of a mockery of college football if they are getting paid something at 18 or 19 years old
the attrition rate from alcohol poisoning, over dosing, getting killed in a drug deal, driving a fast car off a cliff, or getting taken out for "big gold" or shoes will be through the roof
those players will have a massive target on their back mainly because they will do everything they can to place that target on their back
not to mention how badly they will blow off school before they get kicked out and are broke (or probably in debt for 6x that they ever earned) and now have no career, no piece of paper, one or one and a half years of on the field performance and pro teams taking a hard pass on drafting them or signing them
you could have an ESPN 30 for 30 story 2X a week on the next maurice clarette
the worst part is all the piles of crap that are calling for players to be paid would be the first ones out there crying that the "system gave them money and used them up and spit them out with nothing"
because yea after he made a .01 GPA his first year in 9 hours of classes, crashed his car (that a donor gave him) into a tree and paralyzed his ex GF, got robbed in a sketchy situation where he did not cooperate with the police, partied too much instead of practicing, and almost got wrapped up in a big weed deal "the mean old system just spit him out and no longer cared about him once they were done with him and no one wanted to pay him for anything or give him a job and they would not even give him that education that he really wanted"
"you can't just give CHILDREN large amounts of money and no training on how to handle it and no advice on what to do with it!!!!"
"there should be a safety net for these children to fall back on!!!!!"
7. more than likely in addition to probably 90% of the D1-A programs having the vast majority of their players say they no longer wanted to play the other 10% of the schools you would probably also have a lot of issues at the individual programs too.....players fighting, stabbing and even shooting each other over the idea that one stole the others endorsement deal or one stealing stuff from another and retaliation, cars damages, drive bys, and on and on
you are not going to have 10 or so players out of 85 that are getting paid huge money even if the others are getting that BS "movie date night money" without a lot of issues coming.....all the more so when those players start angling for special treatment or they transfer to a place that will pay the same or better
8. you will have donors that think they can step in and elevate a program fast.... they will not give to the university for facilities or they will reduce that and toss money at big name players and then the coach will have issues with how to make all those horrible personalities and non-matched talent work, while having lesser facilities, players always looking to leave when that big donor realizes his idea is failing or he has a falling out with the coach and it will ruin a lot of those programs.....it can be the 3rd night of the week 30 for 30 on what happened to that program that had all those star players that never did anything and flames out big time
9. the way to clean up the NCAA is to get rid of the morons that place no value on education, get rid of the morons that do not understand the difference between income and profits, get rid of the morons that do not understand the expense universities pay to showcase their talents and put the focus back on education
limit freshman playing, have GPA and credit hours towards a degree requirements to participate, stop trying to be a minor league, stop caring that some people think players should be paid (because they are too stupid ti understand income does not equal profits) and get rid of the athlete non-students and who cares where they end up
I agree.
But your ideals aren't going to work in the world we live in.
No corporation is going to shower money on an athlete without expecting something pretty overt in return. Ever notice how "amateur" skiers always take off their skis immediately after a run and face the brand name toward the camera? Ever notice how many sponsor logos are sewn onto race drivers' apparel? Is that what we want in college sports, a bunch of human billboards who only incidentally represent their institutions of higher learning?
If kids want to make money from their athletic prowess, and if they have the innate talent to do so and aren't really interested in an education, don't clutter the campus with them. Let them skip school and go pro. That's what Pete Rose did. And that's what one-and-done LeBron James would have done absent the NBA's mindless eligibility rules.
(04-14-2019 08:16 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ] (04-14-2019 06:06 AM)micahandme Wrote: [ -> ]I enjoy re-alignment stuff (even if it's been a quiet few years now). But what I don't enjoy is the "pay the players!" debate.
My question/proposal...is why can't the Olympic model be the solution for this whole fiasco?
If Trevor Lawrence is allowed to profit from his name and likeness, then he gets not just the "normal" compensation of a college athlete (100,000's of dollars for education, food, health care, housing, etc.) but he also can be a Nike sponsor or a Big Bob's Car Lot sponsor and make 100,000s more dollars.
The girls softball team can still get her Title IX compensation for college athletics too (equality) but the "real" cash cows can earn what they deserve in the "open market."
This cleans up the SEC bag man problem. If Big Bob wants Tua to smile on his billboard to sell cars, then he gets that. As it is, Big Bob gives Tua a bag of cash every few weeks and gets nothing for it (except to tell his friends indirectly that he does it).
This also keeps the athletic department budgets from being so out of control. You don't NEED another locker room with video screens, Oregon! The "donor" money is diluted from AD's pockets and budgets and into the players. Big Bob cuts his 100,000 he gives to Alabama because now he's paying Tua 100,000 to sell cars for him.
I'm sure NCAA proponents would argue how hard it would be to have "some players making pennies while others make thousands" and how the agency feeding frenzy would be messy...but you know what? That's the free market. Mike Trout and the fourth middle reliever make different amounts in MLB...and they somehow manage to co-exist on the same team. It might make some "new" problems, sure....but it's kind of like amputating a toe so you don't have an entire body turn septic and die.
Team endorsements would need to trump individual endorsements (Jake Fromm has to wear Georgia's NIKE gear even if he's sponsored by Under Armour).
I sincerely welcome thoughts on why this doesn't solve most of the NCAA's problems.
Just to make sure I understand you, are you saying it should be OK for schools, through boosters or apparel sponsors, to pay recruits to attend a particular school? And whichever school is willing to pay the most gets to sign the recruit?
Yes. This is just legalized bagmen. It doesn't really change anything.
(04-14-2019 08:55 AM)micahandme Wrote: [ -> ] (04-14-2019 08:16 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ] (04-14-2019 06:06 AM)micahandme Wrote: [ -> ]I enjoy re-alignment stuff (even if it's been a quiet few years now). But what I don't enjoy is the "pay the players!" debate.
My question/proposal...is why can't the Olympic model be the solution for this whole fiasco?
If Trevor Lawrence is allowed to profit from his name and likeness, then he gets not just the "normal" compensation of a college athlete (100,000's of dollars for education, food, health care, housing, etc.) but he also can be a Nike sponsor or a Big Bob's Car Lot sponsor and make 100,000s more dollars.
The girls softball team can still get her Title IX compensation for college athletics too (equality) but the "real" cash cows can earn what they deserve in the "open market."
This cleans up the SEC bag man problem. If Big Bob wants Tua to smile on his billboard to sell cars, then he gets that. As it is, Big Bob gives Tua a bag of cash every few weeks and gets nothing for it (except to tell his friends indirectly that he does it).
This also keeps the athletic department budgets from being so out of control. You don't NEED another locker room with video screens, Oregon! The "donor" money is diluted from AD's pockets and budgets and into the players. Big Bob cuts his 100,000 he gives to Alabama because now he's paying Tua 100,000 to sell cars for him.
I'm sure NCAA proponents would argue how hard it would be to have "some players making pennies while others make thousands" and how the agency feeding frenzy would be messy...but you know what? That's the free market. Mike Trout and the fourth middle reliever make different amounts in MLB...and they somehow manage to co-exist on the same team. It might make some "new" problems, sure....but it's kind of like amputating a toe so you don't have an entire body turn septic and die.
Team endorsements would need to trump individual endorsements (Jake Fromm has to wear Georgia's NIKE gear even if he's sponsored by Under Armour).
I sincerely welcome thoughts on why this doesn't solve most of the NCAA's problems.
Just to make sure I understand you, are you saying it should be OK for schools, through boosters or apparel sponsors, to pay recruits to attend a particular school? And whichever school is willing to pay the most gets to sign the recruit?
No. Schools maintain Title IX. Equal scholarship for all male and female athletes, regardless of the revenue they make for the school.
The "only" change is Trevor Lawrence can sign his own sneaker deal, soda deals, local business deals. He would have an agent who organizes and maintains his sponsorships, as pro athletes and Olympians do today. He doesn't get "paid" by the NCAA school, except for the scholarship/housing/food/medical benefits they currently get.
Trevor Lawrence, then, would be making thousands right out of high school and after his blitzkrieg through the NCAA last year, he'd be a millionaire NOW. The NFL can keep their rules about three years out of high school for players. That is irrelevant to this discussion, in this case.
And I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell.....
What you are proposing would basically allow XYZ car sales to pay Trevor Lawrence $$$$$s to do a car ad that plays on the independent station at 3am. Its just another way to do under the table money. It might make things even worse than now.
Who wouldn't shop at a Big Bobs!?!
How about this: we allow the players to get endorsements but all NCAA coaches have to be volunteer.
(04-14-2019 10:15 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote: [ -> ]How about this: we allow the players to get endorsements but all NCAA coaches have to be volunteer.
You have a bit of a point. The huge money for coaches has made the incentive for the coaches to cheat even bigger.
The money in basketball and football encourages the college to look the other way. But in the non-rev sports, the cheating is primarily driven by the coaches.
(04-14-2019 06:06 AM)micahandme Wrote: [ -> ]I enjoy re-alignment stuff (even if it's been a quiet few years now). But what I don't enjoy is the "pay the players!" debate.
My question/proposal...is why can't the Olympic model be the solution for this whole fiasco?
If Trevor Lawrence is allowed to profit from his name and likeness, then he gets not just the "normal" compensation of a college athlete (100,000's of dollars for education, food, health care, housing, etc.) but he also can be a Nike sponsor or a Big Bob's Car Lot sponsor and make 100,000s more dollars.
The girls softball team can still get her Title IX compensation for college athletics too (equality) but the "real" cash cows can earn what they deserve in the "open market."
This cleans up the SEC bag man problem. If Big Bob wants Tua to smile on his billboard to sell cars, then he gets that. As it is, Big Bob gives Tua a bag of cash every few weeks and gets nothing for it (except to tell his friends indirectly that he does it).
This also keeps the athletic department budgets from being so out of control. You don't NEED another locker room with video screens, Oregon! The "donor" money is diluted from AD's pockets and budgets and into the players. Big Bob cuts his 100,000 he gives to Alabama because now he's paying Tua 100,000 to sell cars for him.
I'm sure NCAA proponents would argue how hard it would be to have "some players making pennies while others make thousands" and how the agency feeding frenzy would be messy...but you know what? That's the free market. Mike Trout and the fourth middle reliever make different amounts in MLB...and they somehow manage to co-exist on the same team. It might make some "new" problems, sure....but it's kind of like amputating a toe so you don't have an entire body turn septic and die.
Team endorsements would need to trump individual endorsements (Jake Fromm has to wear Georgia's NIKE gear even if he's sponsored by Under Armour).
I sincerely welcome thoughts on why this doesn't solve most of the NCAA's problems.
The SEC has no corner on the Bag Man. USC did it through real estate deals. The payments go on in every P5 conference and at the vast majority of top schools in their respective sports.
When I hear statements made like this it reminds me of the hooey of Northerners crying racist over the South when I spent my childhood in Northern towns that had curfews against African Americans even remaining within the city limits after dark (50's and early 60's).
The bag man no longer exists as the stereotypes go. The modern version is a solid job for a near relative given by a distant family member of the donor to a significant relation of the player. The more sophisticated ones are state jobs doled out by the alumni of the law schools at the main state school who just happened to have been elected to state office. That one works well for about 2 dozen schools around the nation since the NCAA has a hard time getting a subpoena for a state official and the fewer state law schools within said state the easier it works.
Sure there are still places that buy kids with cars and cash but they are the vast exception and mostly still limited to smaller programs. Corporate interests have grown over the last decade or two.
If you want to clean it up there is only one way to go, pay the players, tax the players, and let them have their endorsement money above board, and taxable. The long and short of it is that they quit being student athletes sometime after the turn of the 20th century when the game of football was just a few decades old.
It's just that whether it is state jobs, private jobs, corporate money through a go between, payola, cars & bling, hookers (Miami and one prominent school up North that ESPN treaded too lightly upon), automatic A's for a degree from an otherwise solid school, or some other twist or perk, all of it makes the kids technically guilty of conspiring to hide revenue and the fact that state institutions have been involved in making them complicit for the sake of money simply makes the present system all the more disgusting. What we owe the athletes is an honest system. Helping them to be on the up and up is our responsibility and the present system is as jaded as they come and all the way from the payoff to the player to the top of the NCAA.
There is no repairing something that is absolutely corrupt. It's time to tear it down, burn it up, and start over so that transparency throughout the process is as simple as a W2 and so that the kids aren't made to be part of a dodge, but rather can take pride in earning their way and paying their part.
The idea that bag men will go away if we start paying players is asinine. Every advantage that the services of the bagman offers will still exist, they will just be that much harder to detect.
(04-14-2019 11:32 AM)Kaplony Wrote: [ -> ]The idea that bag men will go away if we start paying players is asinine. Every advantage that the services of the bagman offers will still exist, they will just be that much harder to detect.
If the rules permit college athletes to get endorsement money like Olympic athletes do, then bagmen are irrelevant. If you are, say, Zion Williamson, and Nike (or anyone else) can pay you as much as they want, out in the open, then Nike (or anyone else) doesn't need to use a bagman, just as they don't need to use a bagman to pay LeBron James.
The only way to clean up college sports is to remove all financial incentives. Acceptance for all students would be based strictly on academic merit, there'd be no athletic grants-in-aid, and participation in sports would be voluntary, like participation in any other extracurricular activity.
You want to play college football? Fine. But first you have meet the same entrance requirements as every other student, pass a physical at your own expense, and pay an activity fee. Just like high school. Just like the Chess Club or the Debate Society.
Coaches? They're teachers, right? So let's be extremely generous and treat them like tenure-tracked faculty. If they qualify academically and prove themselves, they should move up the ladder. But they'll never earn millions per year, and they shouldn't. That's just obscene.
Yeah, I'm naïve. But I've never been a big fan of very expensive tails wagging chronically under-funded dogs.
(04-14-2019 11:45 AM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ] (04-14-2019 11:32 AM)Kaplony Wrote: [ -> ]The idea that bag men will go away if we start paying players is asinine. Every advantage that the services of the bagman offers will still exist, they will just be that much harder to detect.
If the rules permit college athletes to get endorsement money like Olympic athletes do, then bagmen are irrelevant. If you are, say, Zion Williamson, and Nike (or anyone else) can pay you as much as they want, out in the open, then Nike (or anyone else) doesn't need to use a bagman, just as they don't need to use a bagman to pay LeBron James.
There will always be limits on what a college athlete can earn. When limits exist so do people who push beyond them, thus bagmen will always exist.
(04-14-2019 01:03 PM)Kaplony Wrote: [ -> ] (04-14-2019 11:45 AM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ] (04-14-2019 11:32 AM)Kaplony Wrote: [ -> ]The idea that bag men will go away if we start paying players is asinine. Every advantage that the services of the bagman offers will still exist, they will just be that much harder to detect.
If the rules permit college athletes to get endorsement money like Olympic athletes do, then bagmen are irrelevant. If you are, say, Zion Williamson, and Nike (or anyone else) can pay you as much as they want, out in the open, then Nike (or anyone else) doesn't need to use a bagman, just as they don't need to use a bagman to pay LeBron James.
There will always be limits on what a college athlete can earn. When limits exist so do people who push beyond them, thus bagmen will always exist.
The only thing that is asinine is to continue as we are and pretend it is anything but hypocrisy. That's not only asinine but delusional. You can't claim to lead young people and that sport is good for character development if you skirt the law and make the young people accomplices to it.
That develops no character except bad character, it besmirches the schools involved and makes hypocrites out of their donors and coaches, and to pretend that it is anything other is delusional, immoral, and screams for reform.
(04-14-2019 06:06 AM)micahandme Wrote: [ -> ]I enjoy re-alignment stuff (even if it's been a quiet few years now). But what I don't enjoy is the "pay the players!" debate.
My question/proposal...is why can't the Olympic model be the solution for this whole fiasco?
If Trevor Lawrence is allowed to profit from his name and likeness, then he gets not just the "normal" compensation of a college athlete (100,000's of dollars for education, food, health care, housing, etc.) but he also can be a Nike sponsor or a Big Bob's Car Lot sponsor and make 100,000s more dollars.
The girls softball team can still get her Title IX compensation for college athletics too (equality) but the "real" cash cows can earn what they deserve in the "open market."
This cleans up the SEC bag man problem. If Big Bob wants Tua to smile on his billboard to sell cars, then he gets that. As it is, Big Bob gives Tua a bag of cash every few weeks and gets nothing for it (except to tell his friends indirectly that he does it).
This also keeps the athletic department budgets from being so out of control. You don't NEED another locker room with video screens, Oregon! The "donor" money is diluted from AD's pockets and budgets and into the players. Big Bob cuts his 100,000 he gives to Alabama because now he's paying Tua 100,000 to sell cars for him.
I'm sure NCAA proponents would argue how hard it would be to have "some players making pennies while others make thousands" and how the agency feeding frenzy would be messy...but you know what? That's the free market. Mike Trout and the fourth middle reliever make different amounts in MLB...and they somehow manage to co-exist on the same team. It might make some "new" problems, sure....but it's kind of like amputating a toe so you don't have an entire body turn septic and die.
Team endorsements would need to trump individual endorsements (Jake Fromm has to wear Georgia's NIKE gear even if he's sponsored by Under Armour).
I sincerely welcome thoughts on why this doesn't solve most of the NCAA's problems.
No it doesnt "solve the problem". It just makes it legal and much more wide spread. Just as legalizing murder wouldnt "solve" the murder problem---it would only make murder more common. The biggest problem with the olympic solution is it would place the boosters almost completely in control of most major college athletic programs. How could that possibly ever go wrong?
I have no idea what the answer is. To pay every college football player in FBS just $500 a month ($6K a year) would cost a total of 81 million dollars for FBS. When you start looking at it like that, there really isnt all that much money sloshing around in the conferences to pay the athletes all that much. Maybe part of the answer is for the FBS to approach the NFL for an investment/partnership advertising and promotional arrangement so the FBS---that has functioned as a free developmental league for the NFL--can continue to function largely in the same way it always has. It would be far cheaper the NFL to ante up say 50 million a year toward that end than it would be to build out their own developmental league. Under something like that, a players fund could be established that spins off 500-1000 bucks a month for each player. Its not get rich money---but it at least gives the kids an income that mimics the typical college kids part time job and allows the players a few buck to ask a girl out on a date or to go see a movie.
(04-14-2019 01:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (04-14-2019 06:06 AM)micahandme Wrote: [ -> ]I enjoy re-alignment stuff (even if it's been a quiet few years now). But what I don't enjoy is the "pay the players!" debate.
My question/proposal...is why can't the Olympic model be the solution for this whole fiasco?
If Trevor Lawrence is allowed to profit from his name and likeness, then he gets not just the "normal" compensation of a college athlete (100,000's of dollars for education, food, health care, housing, etc.) but he also can be a Nike sponsor or a Big Bob's Car Lot sponsor and make 100,000s more dollars.
The girls softball team can still get her Title IX compensation for college athletics too (equality) but the "real" cash cows can earn what they deserve in the "open market."
This cleans up the SEC bag man problem. If Big Bob wants Tua to smile on his billboard to sell cars, then he gets that. As it is, Big Bob gives Tua a bag of cash every few weeks and gets nothing for it (except to tell his friends indirectly that he does it).
This also keeps the athletic department budgets from being so out of control. You don't NEED another locker room with video screens, Oregon! The "donor" money is diluted from AD's pockets and budgets and into the players. Big Bob cuts his 100,000 he gives to Alabama because now he's paying Tua 100,000 to sell cars for him.
I'm sure NCAA proponents would argue how hard it would be to have "some players making pennies while others make thousands" and how the agency feeding frenzy would be messy...but you know what? That's the free market. Mike Trout and the fourth middle reliever make different amounts in MLB...and they somehow manage to co-exist on the same team. It might make some "new" problems, sure....but it's kind of like amputating a toe so you don't have an entire body turn septic and die.
Team endorsements would need to trump individual endorsements (Jake Fromm has to wear Georgia's NIKE gear even if he's sponsored by Under Armour).
I sincerely welcome thoughts on why this doesn't solve most of the NCAA's problems.
No it doesnt "solve the problem". It just makes it legal and much more wide spread. Just as legalizing murder wouldnt "solve" the murder problem---it would only make murder more common.
To equate being a legal employee to murder is pure hyperbole, and illogical. Murder is wrong in itself as an act and is recognized by virtually every culture as such. Playing football is not. Being paid for one's efforts in any field is perfectly legal. Only the Olympics (an event that makes sponsors millions) wanted to keep free labor for their profits. The NCAA is an anachronism of that system. Paying the players is only fair as they assume a legitimate risk to their futures by providing the entertainment value that draws 75,000 paying customers on average to each SEC venue during the 12 week season in which it is played. Legalizing murder is an affront to humanity and any law making it legal would be immoral by its nature. Paying people for their risk and contribution is hardly immoral, nor is it illegal.
(04-14-2019 01:29 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (04-14-2019 01:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (04-14-2019 06:06 AM)micahandme Wrote: [ -> ]I enjoy re-alignment stuff (even if it's been a quiet few years now). But what I don't enjoy is the "pay the players!" debate.
My question/proposal...is why can't the Olympic model be the solution for this whole fiasco?
If Trevor Lawrence is allowed to profit from his name and likeness, then he gets not just the "normal" compensation of a college athlete (100,000's of dollars for education, food, health care, housing, etc.) but he also can be a Nike sponsor or a Big Bob's Car Lot sponsor and make 100,000s more dollars.
The girls softball team can still get her Title IX compensation for college athletics too (equality) but the "real" cash cows can earn what they deserve in the "open market."
This cleans up the SEC bag man problem. If Big Bob wants Tua to smile on his billboard to sell cars, then he gets that. As it is, Big Bob gives Tua a bag of cash every few weeks and gets nothing for it (except to tell his friends indirectly that he does it).
This also keeps the athletic department budgets from being so out of control. You don't NEED another locker room with video screens, Oregon! The "donor" money is diluted from AD's pockets and budgets and into the players. Big Bob cuts his 100,000 he gives to Alabama because now he's paying Tua 100,000 to sell cars for him.
I'm sure NCAA proponents would argue how hard it would be to have "some players making pennies while others make thousands" and how the agency feeding frenzy would be messy...but you know what? That's the free market. Mike Trout and the fourth middle reliever make different amounts in MLB...and they somehow manage to co-exist on the same team. It might make some "new" problems, sure....but it's kind of like amputating a toe so you don't have an entire body turn septic and die.
Team endorsements would need to trump individual endorsements (Jake Fromm has to wear Georgia's NIKE gear even if he's sponsored by Under Armour).
I sincerely welcome thoughts on why this doesn't solve most of the NCAA's problems.
No it doesnt "solve the problem". It just makes it legal and much more wide spread. Just as legalizing murder wouldnt "solve" the murder problem---it would only make murder more common.
To equate being a legal employee to murder is pure hyperbole, and illogical. Murder is wrong in itself as an act and is recognized by virtually every culture as such. Playing football is not. Being paid for one's efforts in any field is perfectly legal. Only the Olympics (an event that makes sponsors millions) wanted to keep free labor for their profits. The NCAA is an anachronism of that system. Paying the players is only fair as they assume a legitimate risk to their futures by providing the entertainment value that draws 75,000 paying customers on average to each SEC venue during the 12 week season in which it is played. Legalizing murder is an affront to humanity and any law making it legal would be immoral by its nature. Paying people for their risk and contribution is hardly immoral, nor is it illegal.
Perhaps I picked a bad analogy. The point I was trying to make is that if you legalize a problem---you'll get more of it--not less.