(10-05-2019 01:16 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 11:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 04:34 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  I look at the world from the standpoint of the non-P5 schools and my focus is on the entire spectrum of D-I college athletics. I see Cal State Fullerton with 18 College World Series appearances (including 3 in the past 10 years) and Coastal Carolina winning the whole thing just three years ago. I see non-P5 schools having won the NCAA title in men's ice hockey for the past 7 consecutive seasons. I see Northern Arizona dominating men's cross country competition with 3 consecutive national championships. I see Hawaii having made it to the NCAA final four in beach volleyball for the past 4 seasons, and narrowly losing to Long Beach State in the men's volleyball championship match just six months ago. I see a semblance of a level playing field in those sports, and kids fighting for championships based on "good old fashioned clean competition devoid of money" and thousands of fans rooting for them. And so the question I ask is, why should I sit back and say it's fine for boosters to pay players without restriction and simply accept that going forward championships in any and all NCAA sports will be available for purchase by whomever is willing to invest the most cash?

There's zero reason to think a California model would result in the contamination of those other sports you mention with money. If there was money itching to find its way in to those sports, it would have, in the same way it finds its way in to football - huge coaching salaries, lavish stadiums and facilities, scandals involving payments to players, etc. That's because despite the passion of those fans who follow beach volleyball and cross-country track and ice hockey, in the scheme of things they are very small potatoes.

So rest easy about that. Nobody is going to throw $100,000 at beach volleyball players and ruin the competitive balance (which if I had to bet, probably isn't very balanced, I have no idea who wins in that sport but I bet a few schools dominate).

If there is so little money going to these sports as you claim, then it just makes it that much easier for the one guy who IS obsessed with the sport to buy a title. He probably doesn't even have to be all that rich to do it.

Let him buy one then. All that means is that he is offering money to a player to play for his school - market value that the player should be entitled to capture just as all of us capture our market value.

There's zero justification for limiting a player's ability to earn money, especially not on the grounds of "competitive stability" or "what's best for the schools". If the schools really don't like it, they don't have to sponsor shamateur sports.

The current model is just "professional for everyone else, amateur for the players". Titles are already being "bought", there is no "competitive balance" in any major college sport I can think of, all are dominated by a small number of schools that "buy" their titles by dedicating more resources to coaches, facilities, leveraging their brand names, etc.

BTW, I just looked up Beach Volleyball. It has been a NCAA title sport for four years. Guess what? UCLA has won 2 titles, USC has won the other two. Surprise surprise ....

(10-05-2019 01:30 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 12:58 AM)chester Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 12:08 AM)Fishpro10987 Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 07:29 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  I can already see some kid getting $1 million to do 1 billboard ad or only 1 30 sec TV ad.

Paid for by a local big bucks booster who made the promise while the kid was on the official recruiting visit. This could get out of hand and 'legitimize' a whole host of shady conduct by schools and boosters. Can also produce a lot of resentment. The O-line gets peanuts while the star QB they block for blings his way thru college? Not sure how that sells.

Best course of action is to continue to financially suppress Americans that play college sports. Otherwise, people might do as they please with their own money and there might be hurt feelings among unequally paid adults that live in a capitalist country.

Im not sure government legislation forcing an amateur league to effectively become a pro league is exactly the definition freedom and liberty. The courts took a much more thoughtful and reasonable tack in the O'bannon case in dealing with the application of anti-trust law to the NCAA's unique amateur student athlete model. I suspect the courts will have their say as well before this is all over. Honestly, the only way I can see this working is if there is a shared pool that all the endorsement/appearance money goes into where it would be shared equally by all the players in that sport. In order to reward the individual, allow him to keep 20% of the endorsement/appearance fee. The taxes for that 20% are paid (so he actually gets 20% after taxes and doesnt end up with a bill at the end of the year). The rest of the fee goes to the fund. Maybe something like that would keep the name and likeness game from spiraling out of control as such a system would sort of perform the same braking function as the luxury tax in the NBA. At the very least it would make it expensive as hell to buy a championship.

IMO, your model is a non-starter, because it's anti-American, socialistic. The only way you could even do it is there was collective bargaining with the players as a union, and no player would want to do that - does Kobe want to throw his endorsement money in to a pot to be split between all the other players? Of course not.

Also, the issue isn't the "liberty" of schools to create a unique monopolistic cartel that is built on everyone making a lot of money except the players, it's the liberty of players to make monetize their market value. I don't see your argument as being a compelling argument with anyone. But we shall see. As of now, for all the sturm and drang, only California has passed a law.

(10-04-2019 09:40 AM)MAcFroggy Wrote:  This is the strategy the NCAA should be utilizing. They need to continually beat the drum that the NFL and NBA are the bad guys. Why are they limiting the opportunities of 18 year olds?

Yep. It's insane that the NBA has a development league in place but still chooses to require players to spend a semester in college before declaring for the draft while using the excuse "it's to help them mature and get ready for adult life." The NFL choosing not to invest in a development league at least makes a little sense financially, even if their relationship with the NCAA doesn't morally.

It's been my hope that one of these fly-by-night minor football leagues takes off and announces that they'll sign 18-year-olds, but I think too many of them want to run before they can walk.

(10-05-2019 06:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 01:30 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 12:58 AM)chester Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 12:08 AM)Fishpro10987 Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 07:29 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  I can already see some kid getting $1 million to do 1 billboard ad or only 1 30 sec TV ad.

Paid for by a local big bucks booster who made the promise while the kid was on the official recruiting visit. This could get out of hand and 'legitimize' a whole host of shady conduct by schools and boosters. Can also produce a lot of resentment. The O-line gets peanuts while the star QB they block for blings his way thru college? Not sure how that sells.

Best course of action is to continue to financially suppress Americans that play college sports. Otherwise, people might do as they please with their own money and there might be hurt feelings among unequally paid adults that live in a capitalist country.

Im not sure government legislation forcing an amateur league to effectively become a pro league is exactly the definition freedom and liberty. The courts took a much more thoughtful and reasonable tack in the O'bannon case in dealing with the application of anti-trust law to the NCAA's unique amateur student athlete model. I suspect the courts will have their say as well before this is all over. Honestly, the only way I can see this working is if there is a shared pool that all the endorsement/appearance money goes into where it would be shared equally by all the players in that sport. In order to reward the individual, allow him to keep 20% of the endorsement/appearance fee. The taxes for that 20% are paid (so he actually gets 20% after taxes and doesnt end up with a bill at the end of the year). The rest of the fee goes to the fund. Maybe something like that would keep the name and likeness game from spiraling out of control as such a system would sort of perform the same braking function as the luxury tax in the NBA. At the very least it would make it expensive as hell to buy a championship.

IMO, your model is a non-starter, because it's anti-American, socialistic. The only way you could even do it is there was collective bargaining with the players as a union, and no player would want to do that - does Kobe want to throw his endorsement money in to a pot to be split between all the other players? Of course not.

Also, the issue isn't the "liberty" of schools to create a unique monopolistic cartel that is built on everyone making a lot of money except the players, it's the liberty of players to make monetize their market value. I don't see your argument as being a compelling argument with anyone. But we shall see. As of now, for all the sturm and drang, only California has passed a law.

Let’s just remember, the last time this was litigated, the courts came to the conclusion that the NCAA was in violation of anti trust law but that a scholarship that included FCOA was the remedy. The decision left all other NCAA rules designed to protect its amateur model stand. Furthermore, in the decision, the court indicated that the NCAA was well within its rights to act in a monopolistic way if the rules were designed to create completive balance. So, it would seem precedent is on the NCAA’s side this time around. That said—who knows what the next judge has to say.

I still think you all are thinking awfully small if you think this just comes down to boosters and car lots. This would unleash the apparel companies on college sports in a major way.

(10-04-2019 11:38 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  I really, honestly believe that certain boosters at USC and UCLA don't like seeing their men's volleyball teams get their butts kicked by Hawaii and Long Beach State. Today they really can't do anything about it. With the new rule they can go out and spend money to buy a handful of top-tier players to "fix" that problem. The talent pool in the sport isn't deep, the number of players on the court is small, and it would only require landing a handful of ringers to completely change the competitive balance.

Most people across the country obviously don't care, but Hawaii put 10,000 fans in the stands to watch the Big West title match against Long Beach State, and could have sold more tickets if the arena were bigger.

Just to throw out another example, the team Minnesota-Duluth beat to win the D-I hockey national championship in 2018 was Notre Dame. You don't think Notre Dame has some deep-pocket alumni that would have been willing to spend some money to ensure the Irish had a few more top players to land that title, if that had been allowable? I think they would have, and I don't see why folks in Duluth should have to do the same to give their team a chance to match up.

Folks in Duluth already pay their head men's hockey coach $400,000 a year for those championships. Clearly someone there who cares has some cash.

(10-04-2019 10:37 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 10:32 AM)e-parade Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 10:26 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 10:16 AM)e-parade Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 09:49 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Exactly. The kids ARE receiving significant compensation. Tuition and living expenses at a state school runs around 20-30K a year---more at many private schools. Many students are graduating with over $100K in student debt. So, lets not pretend the scholarship is worthless. That said, I do believe they should be some sort of stipend or revenue sharing that gives them a little spending money/earnings over and above the scholarship. As Ive said before, I think it should be a group NCAA players revenue pool for each sport that is divided evenly among all the players of that sport. If the sport makes little revenue--there wont be much money in that sports NCAA shared players pool. If the sport generates significant revenue--there will be a nice little stream of monthly checks for those players. Basically, such a system gives the players a share of the revenue with altering the current competitive balance or general character of the college game.

As for name and likeness---I would like to see the current NCAA rules stay in place with the following exception---

1) Olympic athletes who also play college sports are exempt from the current name and likeness rule.

Show me the rule that says people who are going to college on academic scholarships are not allowed to make money.

The way I understand it, they can work--but only within certain very strict limits. In fact, its such a compliance headache for the schools that many schools simply forbid their athletes from working. Additionally, with the year round demands of many sports these days---it would be almost impossible for the athletes to find the time or, for that matter, a workplace willing to be flexible enough to deal with the outside demands of the athletes school/athletic schedule.

Does anything prevent someone who is on an academic scholarship from being in a commercial? From having their picture used in an advertisement and getting reimbursed for it?

If it's within strict limits for the amount of time they can spend doing it, then let them do commercials, pose for pictures, etc. within those time limits. This isn't "the athlete has a full time job" - it's "the athlete spent an hour shooting a commercial and gets compensated every time the commercial airs" (which is fairly standard for actors and spokespeople).

Yes--thats against the rules. The whole reason outside jobs and earnings are either closely regulated or flat out prohibited is to stop boosters from buying players. Thats the entire reason for those rules. They dont want boosters paying players 10K a month to turn the sprinklers on an off. They arent trying to screw over players--they are trying to maintain a competitive balance in the league where everyone is on a relatively similar footing. That said--Im very open to options that share some revenue with players without upsetting the current competitive balance and character of college sports. Unfortunately, this "olympic model" concept being batted about does not do that.

So boosters and shoe companies don't pay players under the table now?

The last thing in the world we have in college football right now is competitive balance. Only about 10 teams have a real chance at a championship. It's not much different in basketball.

I guess the TV networks will have to pay the athletes for using their name and likeness during the broadcast too.

(10-04-2019 08:06 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 07:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 07:46 AM)Renandpat Wrote:  The tone-deafness served with a side of arrogance.

Yes, as "Sierra" said, if the "college model" is amateur, how on earth does Mark Emmert have a job with a $2.5m annual salary? Why isn't he a volunteer, like a dad who coaches a town little league team?

The model he refers to is fully professional for the schools, amateur only for the players.

Lol, its hypocrisy bordering on evil.

Seriously. And I love that now the guy is like “we wish we could pay these kids,” while schools cashed in on jerseys and using images and likenesses to grab a buck for ages. No efforts made until it went to court. Where they fought against the notion.

Just plain false, revisionist history.

(10-05-2019 09:34 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 10:37 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 10:32 AM)e-parade Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 10:26 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 10:16 AM)e-parade Wrote:  Show me the rule that says people who are going to college on academic scholarships are not allowed to make money.

The way I understand it, they can work--but only within certain very strict limits. In fact, its such a compliance headache for the schools that many schools simply forbid their athletes from working. Additionally, with the year round demands of many sports these days---it would be almost impossible for the athletes to find the time or, for that matter, a workplace willing to be flexible enough to deal with the outside demands of the athletes school/athletic schedule.

Does anything prevent someone who is on an academic scholarship from being in a commercial? From having their picture used in an advertisement and getting reimbursed for it?

If it's within strict limits for the amount of time they can spend doing it, then let them do commercials, pose for pictures, etc. within those time limits. This isn't "the athlete has a full time job" - it's "the athlete spent an hour shooting a commercial and gets compensated every time the commercial airs" (which is fairly standard for actors and spokespeople).

Yes--thats against the rules. The whole reason outside jobs and earnings are either closely regulated or flat out prohibited is to stop boosters from buying players. Thats the entire reason for those rules. They dont want boosters paying players 10K a month to turn the sprinklers on an off. They arent trying to screw over players--they are trying to maintain a competitive balance in the league where everyone is on a relatively similar footing. That said--Im very open to options that share some revenue with players without upsetting the current competitive balance and character of college sports. Unfortunately, this "olympic model" concept being batted about does not do that.

So boosters and shoe companies don't pay players under the table now?

The last thing in the world we have in college football right now is competitive balance. Only about 10 teams have a real chance at a championship. It's not much different in basketball.

You can make a argument that some schools are cheating in the current system and not enough of the cheaters are being caught and punished. That doesnt mean the rules dont make sense. Despite having laws against credit card fraud and identity theft, tons of people commit these offenses and get away with it every year. Thats hardly an argument for making credit card fraud and identity theft legal. Just because every violator is not caught and punished doesnt mean the rules are not largely performing the function they were designed to perform.

(10-05-2019 10:33 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 08:06 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 07:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 07:46 AM)Renandpat Wrote:  The tone-deafness served with a side of arrogance.

Yes, as "Sierra" said, if the "college model" is amateur, how on earth does Mark Emmert have a job with a $2.5m annual salary? Why isn't he a volunteer, like a dad who coaches a town little league team?

The model he refers to is fully professional for the schools, amateur only for the players.

Lol, its hypocrisy bordering on evil.

Seriously. And I love that now the guy is like “we wish we could pay these kids,” while schools cashed in on jerseys and using images and likenesses to grab a buck for ages. No efforts made until it went to court. Where they fought against the notion.

Just plain false, revisionist history.

lol....this notion that the schools are making big money off sports is the revisionist history. Yeah--a bunch of money comes into the system---but it also gets spent on expenses. Most schools lose money or barely break even on athletics. A handful actually make any meaningful "profit" at all---and that is typically returned to the school for academic use where it provides other scholarship opportunities or facilities. Lets keep in mind---these are NON-PROFIT schools---not sports franchises. The entire purpose of their existence is to to educate---not build sports franchises. The basic public good here is thousands of kids get an education. The sports that actually have a following provide the funds to provide educations to even more kids (mostly women due government mandated Ttile9 requirements)---who likely would not receive a sports scholarship if this were a purely free market economic endeavor. And while people point to the nice "pro like" facilities---lets also remember that much of the money that built those facilties was donated and had nothing to do with actual free market earnings from the ticket sales and rights fees. One more point----we are having all this hand wringing over the athletes---lets remember that at many schools, the students are paying much of the freight for athletics via student fees. If the students were not forced (they have no choice other than going to another school) to pay $200-400 a semester in athletic fees, there would be no athletics program, no athletic scholarship, no FCOA, no trainers, no stadium---basically---no athletics program at all at many schools. If anyone is getting a total screw job with respect to university athletics programs---its the students--not the athletes.

(10-05-2019 10:33 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 08:06 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 07:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 07:46 AM)Renandpat Wrote:  The tone-deafness served with a side of arrogance.

Yes, as "Sierra" said, if the "college model" is amateur, how on earth does Mark Emmert have a job with a $2.5m annual salary? Why isn't he a volunteer, like a dad who coaches a town little league team?

The model he refers to is fully professional for the schools, amateur only for the players.

Lol, its hypocrisy bordering on evil.

Seriously. And I love that now the guy is like “we wish we could pay these kids,” while schools cashed in on jerseys and using images and likenesses to grab a buck for ages. No efforts made until it went to court. Where they fought against the notion.

Just plain false, revisionist history.

It's also interesting to me that a month or two ago before the California bill passed, the NCAA tried to convince them that they were looking into the issue themselves and just need a bit more time to come to a solution.

Now that it's passed, Emmert can tell us ahead of time, in effect, what will and won't be in the proposal that comes out in a few weeks and that we won't have any actual change.

(10-05-2019 10:53 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  lol....this notion that the schools are making big money off sports is the revisionist history. Yeah--a bunch of money comes into the system---but it also gets spent on expenses. Most schools lose money or barely break even on athletics. A handful actually make any meaningful "profit" at all---and that is typically returned to the school for academic use where it provides other scholarship opportunities or facilities. Lets keep in mind---these are NON-PROFIT schools---not sports franchises. The entire purpose of their existence is to to educate---not build sports franchises. The basic public good here is thousands of kids get an education. The sports that actually have a following provide the funds to provide educations to even more kids (mostly women due government mandated Ttile9 requirements)---who likely would not receive a sports scholarship if this were a purely free market economic endeavor. And while people point to the nice "pro like" facilities---lets also remember that much of the money that built those facilties was donated and had nothing to do with actual free market earnings from the ticket sales and rights fees.

Everyone knows that the "schools" aren't making tons of money. And we all know that literally thousands of people are become rich off of amateur sports.

The schools subverted the academic mission in favor of building sports franchises long, long ago. Any claim to the contrary is, at best, patent hypocrisy on their part. When the schools stop paying coaches and administrators millions of dollars, when they take a hard stance on scandals (and not pay for play) in the sport, when they stop chasing money from TV and shoe companies, when they stop scheduling games across the country on a weeknight when "student-athletes" are supposed to be in classes, when they stop with lavish facilities projects, and when they start recruiting the best students for their school rather than the best athletes, then let's talk about what the core mission of the school is.

(10-04-2019 07:51 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  The NBA is relaxing their draft rules again in 2021 I think, so that problem is basically going away.

The big issue is that the NFL (with very, very few exceptions) just isn't interested in 18-21 year olds.

The NFL could do A LOT to alleviate this situation

(10-04-2019 08:06 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 07:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 07:46 AM)Renandpat Wrote:  The tone-deafness served with a side of arrogance.

Yes, as "Sierra" said, if the "college model" is amateur, how on earth does Mark Emmert have a job with a $2.5m annual salary? Why isn't he a volunteer, like a dad who coaches a town little league team?

The model he refers to is fully professional for the schools, amateur only for the players.

Lol, its hypocrisy bordering on evil.

So dramatic lol

Poor football players wahhh

(10-04-2019 02:59 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  I wish people would just be honest about why this want this current system to stand.

People simply do not want athletes to take money away from the school. Fans and school administrators have grown to love those fat checks that pay for coach salaries, facilities, and the athletic department.

Absolutely no one has a problem if the child of a Doctor gets an academic scholarship. And then is able to work with his mom/dad at their practice as a medical assistant and get paid while in school. No one cares if Uncle Johnny buys that kid a brand new car so he/she can look fancy in medical school.

No one cares if a kid studying Biology gets an paid research grant while on academic scholarship.

No one cares if a MIT student on academic scholarship invents something and then gets rich. We even applaud them for doing so even if they are on academic scholarship.

-----------------

We only have a problem when it's a football/basketball player.

Notice how now one is even discussing other sports? Do you think Tiger Woods would not have gotten extra $$$ while he is in college? And women can benefit from this also.

Do you think an exceptional black female athlete could not make a Nike commercial during black history month? Do you think an a female athlete could not double as a model?

People who support this model just need to have the balls and just admit the only reason you like it is so your school can benefit at the expense of the athlete.

The problem is you only see a narrow sliver of the argument

Should players get money for their likeness and endorsements? Sure why not

Is this California crap the way to go? No it has numerous red flags

(10-05-2019 10:33 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 08:06 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 07:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-04-2019 07:46 AM)Renandpat Wrote:  The tone-deafness served with a side of arrogance.

Yes, as "Sierra" said, if the "college model" is amateur, how on earth does Mark Emmert have a job with a $2.5m annual salary? Why isn't he a volunteer, like a dad who coaches a town little league team?

The model he refers to is fully professional for the schools, amateur only for the players.

Lol, its hypocrisy bordering on evil.

Seriously. And I love that now the guy is like “we wish we could pay these kids,” while schools cashed in on jerseys and using images and likenesses to grab a buck for ages. No efforts made until it went to court. Where they fought against the notion.

Just plain false, revisionist history.

To be (somewhat) fair to Emmert, since taking the job, he wanted to give $2,000 stipends to athletes but was rejected by the membership in 2011 and 2013, before the Power 5 received their autonomy. After getting shot down by the membership before the O'Bannon and Alston cases went to Judge Wilken, he just is now repeating the party line from the membership, aka "the schools make the rules".

The people who support these laws are in favor of corrupt boasters to get the best players at the top 10 football schools who have the money. These bills are making money laundering, wire fraud and what got Aunt Becky and Felicity Huffman legalized. These crybaby players are already being paid in scholarships, free room and board, free education and spending cash. Even walk ons winding up with a scholarship when they worked hard for it. These bills would make the star players work less for their starting job because they are making money.

President Trump should issue an executive order that shuts down all collegiate athletic departments until the issue can be resolved

(10-05-2019 12:24 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The people who support these laws are in favor of corrupt boasters to get the best players at the top 10 football schools who have the money. These bills are making money laundering, wire fraud and what got Aunt Becky and Felicity Huffman legalized. These crybaby players are already being paid in scholarships, free room and board, free education and spending cash. Even walk ons winding up with a scholarship when they worked hard for it. These bills would make the star players work less for their starting job because they are making money.

Why not give the player a choice?

Either you can have your scholarship money

-or-

You can forego your scholarship and be allowed to make money from endorsement deals