(09-28-2017 05:56 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  A line of men will be shot. An old school firing line. Louisville, North Carolina, Miami, Cuse, Auburn and Baylor.

Auburn isn't getting shot over this one. If they closed the basketball program, which they won't, the vast majority of Auburn folks wouldn't care. Person had been back for less than two years. At least the damage will be relatively confined to that time frame.

Everybody knew it was dirty !!! everyone .... It was just no one could make anything stick, even the way they hid the money movements
they knew it was dirty. I hope they scrape the floor with a shovel and let the chips fall will they may...some Louisville fans did not deserve
the flaming comet that was dropped on their program, they are just fans...even though I loved to hate Louisville I feel for their fans...

Mike and Mike this morning sounds like they are saying that coaches besides basketball could get a knock on the door by the FBI. That could mean football coaches could be targeted as well.

(09-28-2017 03:16 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 03:07 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 01:11 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 11:55 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 11:20 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  I don't see it that way...while it isn't far fetched to think the NCAA has some corrupt folks inside...the FBI always likes to keep "close hold" on who knows during criminal investigations.

It is not that the NCAA didn't know the FBI was sniffing around, it is the fact that this level of corruption (still TBD as to how much) was going on under their noses?

It really is only one of two answers:
1 - They were deaf dumb and blind? Not an excuse
2 - OR Were they complicit? Inexcusable


The NCAA is in a no win situation with this one. Almost NOBODY believes Pitino when he says "I didn't know!" So do you think the NCAA can fly that flag and everyone will believe them - No F-ing way? Everybody and their sister thinks that they are dragging their feet on the UNC thing because they don't really want to punish them. And when the NCAA does levy penalties on these places, it is barely a slap on the wrist.

The running joke that "UNO will pay for Kentucky's transgressions" says a lot about what people think of the NCAA system. This just feeds that fire of negative perception all the more...

In the court of public opinion this is an indictment of the NCAA as much as it will be of all the individuals and schools involved.

Okay, and how was the NCAA going to get the evidence needed? The members left them as toothless as possible.

So are you saying that the NCAA knows this stuff is going on and choosing to ignore it because there really is nothing they can do about it? That is bull schidt - They basically as guilty as everyone named if that is the case.

They have a license to print money - and they are not about to get in the way of that. They do have the authority and power to compile information and penalize - they have deep pockets to pay for the services needed to research these things. They choose to take the path of least resistance (and most profit). THAT IS A CHOICE.

No, you're wrong. The police can know you robbed that bank but without proof they can't do anything about it. They can't make anyone outside of players and coaches come in and speak to them and those two groups can easily stone wall them. Explain how they can make AAU coaches, HS coaches, shoe company execs or anyone else not a coach or player come in and speak to them? How do they get emails from Adidas?

Seriously, explain it all out for me the process they could have gone through to get the evidence needed to end this ring.

The NCAA is literally the member institutions. It's not a stretch to think they could get pulled into this when the coaches start singing.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(09-29-2017 05:49 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 03:16 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 03:07 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 01:11 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 11:55 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  It is not that the NCAA didn't know the FBI was sniffing around, it is the fact that this level of corruption (still TBD as to how much) was going on under their noses?

It really is only one of two answers:
1 - They were deaf dumb and blind? Not an excuse
2 - OR Were they complicit? Inexcusable


The NCAA is in a no win situation with this one. Almost NOBODY believes Pitino when he says "I didn't know!" So do you think the NCAA can fly that flag and everyone will believe them - No F-ing way? Everybody and their sister thinks that they are dragging their feet on the UNC thing because they don't really want to punish them. And when the NCAA does levy penalties on these places, it is barely a slap on the wrist.

The running joke that "UNO will pay for Kentucky's transgressions" says a lot about what people think of the NCAA system. This just feeds that fire of negative perception all the more...

In the court of public opinion this is an indictment of the NCAA as much as it will be of all the individuals and schools involved.

Okay, and how was the NCAA going to get the evidence needed? The members left them as toothless as possible.

So are you saying that the NCAA knows this stuff is going on and choosing to ignore it because there really is nothing they can do about it? That is bull schidt - They basically as guilty as everyone named if that is the case.

They have a license to print money - and they are not about to get in the way of that. They do have the authority and power to compile information and penalize - they have deep pockets to pay for the services needed to research these things. They choose to take the path of least resistance (and most profit). THAT IS A CHOICE.

No, you're wrong. The police can know you robbed that bank but without proof they can't do anything about it. They can't make anyone outside of players and coaches come in and speak to them and those two groups can easily stone wall them. Explain how they can make AAU coaches, HS coaches, shoe company execs or anyone else not a coach or player come in and speak to them? How do they get emails from Adidas?

Seriously, explain it all out for me the process they could have gone through to get the evidence needed to end this ring.

The NCAA is literally the member institutions. It's not a stretch to think they could get pulled into this when the coaches start singing.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

When schools hire NCAA officials to be their compliance officers it always gives me pause.

Even more suspicious if they go to the NCAA to work and come back to certain schools

Rutgers guy - the point I am trying to make is that if they (the NCAA) really wanted to dig into this they could. FBI or not, there are private investigative people all over the country at their disposal who can dig, observe, trace etc.....

The problem is that the governing body of collegiate athletics is really is not independent, and therefor basically turning itself in if infractions are discovered.

When you have 9 zero's on your balance sheet, you are likely NOT going to tell on yourself in any meaningful way, other than to have the occasional slap on the wrist that looks like you are doing your job in the PR world.

This event in a vacuum is actually not a huge deal, but if the FBI keeps pulling this thread and the few $100K multiplies to a few $Million or more - all bets are off. Words like "Tax Evasion", "collusion", "extortion" etc.... are not goinmg to sit well.

In my accounting world the catch all phrase I love to hear is "materiality" meaning there is something there, but it is not enough to move the needle - therefore - not important. There is some line of materiality out there that this may cross (and that is up to the FBI) and if it does - look out. The NCAA will claim they cannot possibly know everything that goes on under their watch and that would be the ultimate irony - now wouldn't it?

(09-28-2017 08:51 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  I think this, coupled with the P5 in FBS, will lead to the elimination, or at very least de-emphasization, of the NCAA. Over the last several years, big-time programs like Penn State, Miami, Baylor, USC, UNC and Louisville all have come under major fire for major infractions and - in some cases - criminal activity. Without the usage or enforcement of the death penalty, there is little-to-no incentive for programs to not cheat and bend the rules in order to protect its major sports and their overall competitiveness. Right now, schools will absolutely "sacrifice" a couple of years on probation in order to have a shot at one national championship - because, in retrospect, the money earned and branding spread outweighs the cost of getting penalized.

"Shoegate" may not be the first major scandal college athletics, but the fact that FBI got involved, and that the NCAA had no clue it was going on, should speak volumes as to where we are headed within college sports.

You forgot Syracuse, Auburn and Oklahoma State. (I am not defending Louisville, at ALL!). I am just saying these major violations and criminal acts are wide-ranging. Not just a few schools. Many schools. (This is all quite sickening to me, and I am quite embarrassed for my school)

While every school should be properly penalized under existing law and rule, the rules clearly need to be changed. And the laws may too.

I would start with a proper definition and clarification of "amateur" status in any
existing or new Federal Law.

Then I would figure out some way to allow universities to field semi-pro or full-pro teams. Maybe these teams would be operated as only "associates" of the universities. using their names under license.

I do think that the NCAA will survive this. But I also think a new unbridled wild wild west consortium will be formed.

(09-28-2017 03:40 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 03:27 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 01:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 08:38 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  The NCAA in their self-serving ways to protect their billion dollar enterprise will come up with reforms. They'll say CYA statements and apologies that they should have done better. They'll try to put in more feckless controls to enforce rules. They might even ban or put a cap on what shoe companies can pay to schools.

At this point the schools either all take a step back and work on meaningful reforms with the NCAA or more likely the biggest schools break away and form a new association. Could see a new Power 30/60/90/120?

Just my early speculative thoughts.

Feedback?

First a few random thoughts:

1. A layered bureaucracy can't be reformed. Therefore the NCAA should be tossed and new governing institutions with regulatory and enforcement emphasis should be put into place. The institutions should be paid for by the member schools and never should be permitted to pocket proceeds from events with the promise of dolling said proceeds back out.

2. For the good of all college sports scholarships and books and living expenses should be covered tax free. All other sources of revenue to the athletes need to be extraneous to the schools and should be subject to taxes. If Pepsi wants to use Lamar Jackson for promotion of its product that's between Pepsi and Lamar. The governing body and school should not be a party. If Lamar subsequently violates team rules or fails to pass coursework and is dismissed that's the school's business and not Pepsi's. (And for the chronically slow that was a hypothetical illustration.)

3. There is no longer any such thing as an amateur.
*******************************************************************
Suggestions:

1. Create the new regulatory and governing units and do so for each division. That way only schools in a division vote on issues pertinent to them.

2. Permit all athletes to have taxed endorsement revenue beyond the purview of the schools.

3. Clearly delineate the schools rights to discipline, dismiss, and manage the athletes independent of agents or companies.

4. Make all scholarships solid 2 year commitments which may be renewed for an additional 2 years and amended for redshirt, injury, or any other extension of time granted by the governing authority.

5. If an athlete chooses to leave early the school, or professional sports team to which they are leaving is responsible for reimbursing the school they are departing for any unfulfilled time on their two year commitment.


6. The lines of amateurism, eligibility, and investment by the scholarship provider have for too long been blurred. They need to be cleaned up and defined in such ways as to protect the rights of the players and the investments of the schools.

Bear in mind the fact that it is precisely because college athletics are deemed "amateur" that they are considered tax-exempt activities. If you take away that presumption, then they will be deemed by the IRS to be "business activities not related to the institution's tax-exempt purpose". That opens a whole other set of worms, including employee status for athletes and tax-deductibility for booster club donations.

Believe me - I'm someone that constantly states here that players should be paid. I have no idea why we're pretending that these players are amateurs with the very clearly professional industry that has been formed around college athletics by the Power Five and TV networks.

That being said, I understand the reality that this is the Rubicon that the NCAA doesn't want to cross unless it's legally compelled to do so (e.g. Supreme Court decision). The compromise would be the Olympic model where the players can receive endorsement income outside of school. This would clearly preserve the tax-exempt status for school athletic departments (even though I personally believe that it wouldn't in jeopardy by paying players directly, anyway), the private marketplace can make the free market-driven decision on its own to compensate football and men's basketball players over other athletes (which avoids the Title IX issues that would effectively force colleges to pay all athletes in all sports equally), and frankly just get what we all know goes on under the table (as evidenced by this FBI investigation) out into the open and on the up-and-up.

At what point should players be allowed to be paid? Specific Age or What? Pay Players at 16, 15, 14, 13? Pay their families beginning at what point? When the kid is 5 or 6 yrs old?

(09-28-2017 10:40 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  Louisville will get shut down for a year or two, other schools involved will get hit with something moderate, one and done rule will finally be changed within the next 5 years, and by that point everything goes back to business as usual. Agents will continue to find ways to influence, AAU will still be slimy, and coaches will still cheat until the NCAA finally pays the athletes.

So basically nothing earth shattering, unless you are Louisville.

Oh I'm sorry, but the NBA collective bargaining agreement doesn't end until 2024. Seven years from now.

(09-28-2017 05:26 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 03:40 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 03:27 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 01:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 08:38 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  The NCAA in their self-serving ways to protect their billion dollar enterprise will come up with reforms. They'll say CYA statements and apologies that they should have done better. They'll try to put in more feckless controls to enforce rules. They might even ban or put a cap on what shoe companies can pay to schools.

At this point the schools either all take a step back and work on meaningful reforms with the NCAA or more likely the biggest schools break away and form a new association. Could see a new Power 30/60/90/120?

Just my early speculative thoughts.

Feedback?

First a few random thoughts:

1. A layered bureaucracy can't be reformed. Therefore the NCAA should be tossed and new governing institutions with regulatory and enforcement emphasis should be put into place. The institutions should be paid for by the member schools and never should be permitted to pocket proceeds from events with the promise of dolling said proceeds back out.

2. For the good of all college sports scholarships and books and living expenses should be covered tax free. All other sources of revenue to the athletes need to be extraneous to the schools and should be subject to taxes. If Pepsi wants to use Lamar Jackson for promotion of its product that's between Pepsi and Lamar. The governing body and school should not be a party. If Lamar subsequently violates team rules or fails to pass coursework and is dismissed that's the school's business and not Pepsi's. (And for the chronically slow that was a hypothetical illustration.)

3. There is no longer any such thing as an amateur.
*******************************************************************
Suggestions:

1. Create the new regulatory and governing units and do so for each division. That way only schools in a division vote on issues pertinent to them.

2. Permit all athletes to have taxed endorsement revenue beyond the purview of the schools.

3. Clearly delineate the schools rights to discipline, dismiss, and manage the athletes independent of agents or companies.

4. Make all scholarships solid 2 year commitments which may be renewed for an additional 2 years and amended for redshirt, injury, or any other extension of time granted by the governing authority.

5. If an athlete chooses to leave early the school, or professional sports team to which they are leaving is responsible for reimbursing the school they are departing for any unfulfilled time on their two year commitment.


6. The lines of amateurism, eligibility, and investment by the scholarship provider have for too long been blurred. They need to be cleaned up and defined in such ways as to protect the rights of the players and the investments of the schools.

Bear in mind the fact that it is precisely because college athletics are deemed "amateur" that they are considered tax-exempt activities. If you take away that presumption, then they will be deemed by the IRS to be "business activities not related to the institution's tax-exempt purpose". That opens a whole other set of worms, including employee status for athletes and tax-deductibility for booster club donations.

Believe me - I'm someone that constantly states here that players should be paid. I have no idea why we're pretending that these players are amateurs with the very clearly professional industry that has been formed around college athletics by the Power Five and TV networks.

That being said, I understand the reality that this is the Rubicon that the NCAA doesn't want to cross unless it's legally compelled to do so (e.g. Supreme Court decision). The compromise would be the Olympic model where the players can receive endorsement income outside of school. This would clearly preserve the tax-exempt status for school athletic departments (even though I personally believe that it wouldn't in jeopardy by paying players directly, anyway), the private marketplace can make the free market-driven decision on its own to compensate football and men's basketball players over other athletes (which avoids the Title IX issues that would effectively force colleges to pay all athletes in all sports equally), and frankly just get what we all know goes on under the table (as evidenced by this FBI investigation) out into the open and on the up-and-up.

Endorsements? Lamar Jackson gets 500K, and the guys who block for him get nothing. Insane.

Oh, smart boosters that want championships know that 5-star recruit offensive linemen are every bit as critical as Lamar Jackson (if only to ensure that the Lamar Jacksons of the world can actually make it through a season without their heads taken off). Let's take your classic booster: the owner of a car dealership in a college town. That car dealer owner can certainly set up that lineman with some "endorsement" income to sign autographs for customers coming in or serve as a greeter. The car dealership could basically have players there every day of the week. Same thing with the local college town restaurant owner or tons of other business owner boosters. Executive boosters can set them up with nice internship positions at their companies, too. So, they wouldn't necessarily make as much as star QBs, but the actions of boosters paying top recruits (regardless of position) money under the table already show that this market exists. Essentially, the "endorsements" and other forms of employment are laundering money that would have been paid under the table before.

The money IS being paid (even to non-star players). This isn't a hypothetical: the money is THERE. It's all just a matter of finding the right mechanism to legitimatize it.

(09-29-2017 09:25 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 05:26 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 03:40 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 03:27 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 01:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  First a few random thoughts:

1. A layered bureaucracy can't be reformed. Therefore the NCAA should be tossed and new governing institutions with regulatory and enforcement emphasis should be put into place. The institutions should be paid for by the member schools and never should be permitted to pocket proceeds from events with the promise of dolling said proceeds back out.

2. For the good of all college sports scholarships and books and living expenses should be covered tax free. All other sources of revenue to the athletes need to be extraneous to the schools and should be subject to taxes. If Pepsi wants to use Lamar Jackson for promotion of its product that's between Pepsi and Lamar. The governing body and school should not be a party. If Lamar subsequently violates team rules or fails to pass coursework and is dismissed that's the school's business and not Pepsi's. (And for the chronically slow that was a hypothetical illustration.)

3. There is no longer any such thing as an amateur.
*******************************************************************
Suggestions:

1. Create the new regulatory and governing units and do so for each division. That way only schools in a division vote on issues pertinent to them.

2. Permit all athletes to have taxed endorsement revenue beyond the purview of the schools.

3. Clearly delineate the schools rights to discipline, dismiss, and manage the athletes independent of agents or companies.

4. Make all scholarships solid 2 year commitments which may be renewed for an additional 2 years and amended for redshirt, injury, or any other extension of time granted by the governing authority.

5. If an athlete chooses to leave early the school, or professional sports team to which they are leaving is responsible for reimbursing the school they are departing for any unfulfilled time on their two year commitment.


6. The lines of amateurism, eligibility, and investment by the scholarship provider have for too long been blurred. They need to be cleaned up and defined in such ways as to protect the rights of the players and the investments of the schools.

Bear in mind the fact that it is precisely because college athletics are deemed "amateur" that they are considered tax-exempt activities. If you take away that presumption, then they will be deemed by the IRS to be "business activities not related to the institution's tax-exempt purpose". That opens a whole other set of worms, including employee status for athletes and tax-deductibility for booster club donations.

Believe me - I'm someone that constantly states here that players should be paid. I have no idea why we're pretending that these players are amateurs with the very clearly professional industry that has been formed around college athletics by the Power Five and TV networks.

That being said, I understand the reality that this is the Rubicon that the NCAA doesn't want to cross unless it's legally compelled to do so (e.g. Supreme Court decision). The compromise would be the Olympic model where the players can receive endorsement income outside of school. This would clearly preserve the tax-exempt status for school athletic departments (even though I personally believe that it wouldn't in jeopardy by paying players directly, anyway), the private marketplace can make the free market-driven decision on its own to compensate football and men's basketball players over other athletes (which avoids the Title IX issues that would effectively force colleges to pay all athletes in all sports equally), and frankly just get what we all know goes on under the table (as evidenced by this FBI investigation) out into the open and on the up-and-up.

Endorsements? Lamar Jackson gets 500K, and the guys who block for him get nothing. Insane.

Oh, smart boosters that want championships know that 5-star recruit offensive linemen are every bit as critical as Lamar Jackson (if only to ensure that the Lamar Jacksons of the world can actually make it through a season without their heads taken off). Let's take your classic booster: the owner of a car dealership in a college town. That car dealer owner can certainly set up that lineman with some "endorsement" income to sign autographs for customers coming in or serve as a greeter. The car dealership could basically have players there every day of the week. Same thing with the local college town restaurant owner or tons of other business owner boosters. Executive boosters can set them up with nice internship positions at their companies, too. So, they wouldn't necessarily make as much as star QBs, but the actions of boosters paying top recruits (regardless of position) money under the table already show that this market exists. Essentially, the "endorsements" and other forms of employment are laundering money that would have been paid under the table before.

The money IS being paid (even to non-star players). This isn't a hypothetical: the money is THERE. It's all just a matter of finding the right mechanism to legitimatize it.

Everybody hates a lawyer till they need a lawyer. Thanks for being Frank!
I feel the same about Unions!

The ONLY thing that fixes this without allowing college athletes to profit off of their popularity is the NCAA taking everything back under its own umbrella. TV contracts, shoe deals, etc all filtered through Indianapolis. Followed by clearer, more concrete rules and punishments. If the punishment is harsh enough (TV ban for ___ years for ___ violation), the fear of the punishment will keep teams in check.
Distribute the TV money based on viewership

Schools must give a governing body power to govern in order to level the field.

Impossible to tell where this leads. I'm not in the camp that paying players will solve the problem. I don't think it will. First, you would have to pay them equally, so the top players would still be looking for more.

Beyond that, what about Title IX? And what about tax exempt status? Universities pull in far more from federal grants than they do from sports, which usually are break-even or losing propositions.

No easy solutions, or predictable outcomes. But you can bet that whatever is left in the hands of the NCAA itself, beyond the individual prison sentences, will be inconsistent and too light. Only the DoJ can do anything to make this worth something.

(09-29-2017 09:50 AM)tigerjamesc Wrote:  The ONLY thing that fixes this without allowing college athletes to profit off of their popularity is the NCAA taking everything back under its own umbrella. TV contracts, shoe deals, etc all filtered through Indianapolis. Followed by clearer, more concrete rules and punishments. If the punishment is harsh enough (TV ban for ___ years for ___ violation), the fear of the punishment will keep teams in check.
Distribute the TV money based on viewership

Schools must give a governing body power to govern in order to level the field.

The Supreme Court ruling back in the 1980s that ruled that the NCAA violated antitrust laws by imposing TV restrictions at a national level explicitly doesn't allow the NCAA to control any of that. A college player getting paid in and of itself is NOT *illegal*. It might be a violation of NCAA regulations, but those are entirely self-imposed. (Taking bribes is a different story, as that's very much illegal and why the FBI is involved here.)

In contrast, the NCAA (as an organization with hundreds of members) imposing restrictions on TV income, shoe contracts and other free market forces that impact the trade of other private companies IS illegal under antitrust laws. The NCAA can't control this because it's literally ILLEGAL for them to control this at all.

So, we have a choice. Does the NCAA and its member institutions want to keep making money off of college athletics or not? If they want to make money, then the controls that you're asking for inherently cannot be in place.

(09-29-2017 09:57 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Impossible to tell where this leads. I'm not in the camp that paying players will solve the problem. I don't think it will. First, you would have to pay them equally, so the top players would still be looking for more.

Beyond that, what about Title IX? And what about tax exempt status? Universities pull in far more from federal grants than they do from sports, which usually are break-even or losing propositions.

No easy solutions, or predictable outcomes. But you can bet that whatever is left in the hands of the NCAA itself, beyond the individual prison sentences, will be inconsistent and too light. Only the DoJ can do anything to make this worth something.

+1. Very well stated, AAA.

The NCAA, and its schools, cannot be selective on who to pay and what to pay them. If it was a true "open market" then it would absolutely violate Title IX. With regards to actual payment, what is "enough"? There will always be more to had. To quote Gordon Gekko, "A fool and his money are lucky to get together in the first place."

The sad reality is that there is no simple answer. Any new legislation affects a wide array of schools, and you instantly have pods and groups of institutions voting down or up if it positively affects them.

Perhaps the sweeping actions by the FBI will impose fear and apprehension from the crooked within college sports long enough for the landscape to be adjusted and righted. At the very least, it will have coaches and administrators think twice about recruiting a star athlete, not because it is in the best interest of the school, but to simply save their own skin.

(09-29-2017 10:00 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-29-2017 09:50 AM)tigerjamesc Wrote:  The ONLY thing that fixes this without allowing college athletes to profit off of their popularity is the NCAA taking everything back under its own umbrella. TV contracts, shoe deals, etc all filtered through Indianapolis. Followed by clearer, more concrete rules and punishments. If the punishment is harsh enough (TV ban for ___ years for ___ violation), the fear of the punishment will keep teams in check.
Distribute the TV money based on viewership

Schools must give a governing body power to govern in order to level the field.

The Supreme Court ruling back in the 1980s that ruled that the NCAA violated antitrust laws by imposing TV restrictions at a national level explicitly doesn't allow the NCAA to control any of that. A college player getting paid in and of itself is NOT *illegal*. It might be a violation of NCAA regulations, but those are entirely self-imposed. (Taking bribes is a different story, as that's very much illegal and why the FBI is involved here.)

In contrast, the NCAA (as an organization with hundreds of members) imposing restrictions on TV income, shoe contracts and other free market forces that impact the trade of other private companies IS illegal under antitrust laws. The NCAA can't control this because it's literally ILLEGAL for them to control this at all.

So, we have a choice. Does the NCAA and its member institutions want to keep making money off of college athletics or not? If they want to make money, then the controls that you're asking for inherently cannot be in place.

So what should happen? It's easy to point out things that can't happen. Amateurism and "non-profit" are pretty much a joke. We all understand this. Gov't probably needs to intervene and regulate the industry... as much as it pains me to say that.

(09-29-2017 10:06 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(09-29-2017 10:00 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-29-2017 09:50 AM)tigerjamesc Wrote:  The ONLY thing that fixes this without allowing college athletes to profit off of their popularity is the NCAA taking everything back under its own umbrella. TV contracts, shoe deals, etc all filtered through Indianapolis. Followed by clearer, more concrete rules and punishments. If the punishment is harsh enough (TV ban for ___ years for ___ violation), the fear of the punishment will keep teams in check.
Distribute the TV money based on viewership

Schools must give a governing body power to govern in order to level the field.

The Supreme Court ruling back in the 1980s that ruled that the NCAA violated antitrust laws by imposing TV restrictions at a national level explicitly doesn't allow the NCAA to control any of that. A college player getting paid in and of itself is NOT *illegal*. It might be a violation of NCAA regulations, but those are entirely self-imposed. (Taking bribes is a different story, as that's very much illegal and why the FBI is involved here.)

In contrast, the NCAA (as an organization with hundreds of members) imposing restrictions on TV income, shoe contracts and other free market forces that impact the trade of other private companies IS illegal under antitrust laws. The NCAA can't control this because it's literally ILLEGAL for them to control this at all.

So, we have a choice. Does the NCAA and its member institutions want to keep making money off of college athletics or not? If they want to make money, then the controls that you're asking for inherently cannot be in place.

So what should happen? It's easy to point out things that can't happen. Amateurism and "non-profit" are pretty much a joke. We all understand this. Gov't probably needs to intervene and regulate the industry... as much as it pains me to say that.

To me, the answer is more of the opposite: deregulation. Putting aside the issue of direct compensation from colleges to players, why should anyone be limiting a college athlete's ability to sign his or her own deal with a shoe company, take an internship with a company that happens to be owned by a school alum, getting an agent during the recruiting process, or doing anything that any "normal" college student would otherwise be allowed to do? What we're seeing is the logical reaction of market forces: you're not only restricting the ability for these athletes to earn income at the exact time when their market value is the highest for the vast majority of them (as only a fraction of them will ever turn pro), but such athletes actually have income restrictions that no other college students face. No one blinks an eye when a Duke alum business owner hires a "normal" Duke econ major based on his/her affinity for the school. In fact, Duke trumpets how many of their econ majors get *paid* Wall Street internships during college. So, why is it suddenly supposed to change when that Duke econ major happens to also be a basketball or football player? If that simultaneously gives Duke a leg up on the recruiting process, why are we even bothered by it when the financial prospects of "normal" college students is an outright marketing tool for Duke (e.g. "Look at how many of our students got internships at Google and Goldman Sachs!")?

That doesn't mean that there wouldn't be corruption or nefarious people in a deregulated college sports industry. There will always be people that are willing to take one step outside of whatever boundaries you might choose to set. However, I think the core principle is that there is an artificial market disparity caused by the NCAA imposing income restrictions that don't apply to the general college student population. We need to ask ourselves why these regulations are in place at all outside of the warm feelings that we get when we pretend that these athletes are amateurs. Too many fans seem to want their own schools to have their cake (e.g. Power Five membership, huge TV contracts, top salaries for coaches) and eat it, too (e.g. the warm fuzzy feelings of faux amateurism where the players are supposedly playing for the love of their school and nothing else). Then, they're shocked ("I'm shocked that there's gambling in this establishment!") when players get paid under the table and get all sanctimonious when another school gets caught but then ignores that it's about a 99.9% certainty that their own school is doing it, too.

Plus, in practicality, we all know that entities don't willingly choose to make less money. That's just an unrealistic premise on its face. So, I'm all for creating an environment where we're not pretending that this isn't all about money (as evidenced by the TV contracts, coaching salaries, pro-level or better stadium and practice facilities, and pretty much spending dollars on everything other than actual student-athlete compensation).

(09-29-2017 07:04 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(09-29-2017 05:49 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 03:16 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 03:07 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 01:11 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  Okay, and how was the NCAA going to get the evidence needed? The members left them as toothless as possible.

So are you saying that the NCAA knows this stuff is going on and choosing to ignore it because there really is nothing they can do about it? That is bull schidt - They basically as guilty as everyone named if that is the case.

They have a license to print money - and they are not about to get in the way of that. They do have the authority and power to compile information and penalize - they have deep pockets to pay for the services needed to research these things. They choose to take the path of least resistance (and most profit). THAT IS A CHOICE.

No, you're wrong. The police can know you robbed that bank but without proof they can't do anything about it. They can't make anyone outside of players and coaches come in and speak to them and those two groups can easily stone wall them. Explain how they can make AAU coaches, HS coaches, shoe company execs or anyone else not a coach or player come in and speak to them? How do they get emails from Adidas?

Seriously, explain it all out for me the process they could have gone through to get the evidence needed to end this ring.

The NCAA is literally the member institutions. It's not a stretch to think they could get pulled into this when the coaches start singing.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

When schools hire NCAA officials to be their compliance officers it always gives me pause.

Even more suspicious if they go to the NCAA to work and come back to certain schools

True, like you can trust an Auditing firm to do a good job auditing their own client.

(09-29-2017 10:49 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-29-2017 10:06 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(09-29-2017 10:00 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-29-2017 09:50 AM)tigerjamesc Wrote:  The ONLY thing that fixes this without allowing college athletes to profit off of their popularity is the NCAA taking everything back under its own umbrella. TV contracts, shoe deals, etc all filtered through Indianapolis. Followed by clearer, more concrete rules and punishments. If the punishment is harsh enough (TV ban for ___ years for ___ violation), the fear of the punishment will keep teams in check.
Distribute the TV money based on viewership

Schools must give a governing body power to govern in order to level the field.

The Supreme Court ruling back in the 1980s that ruled that the NCAA violated antitrust laws by imposing TV restrictions at a national level explicitly doesn't allow the NCAA to control any of that. A college player getting paid in and of itself is NOT *illegal*. It might be a violation of NCAA regulations, but those are entirely self-imposed. (Taking bribes is a different story, as that's very much illegal and why the FBI is involved here.)

In contrast, the NCAA (as an organization with hundreds of members) imposing restrictions on TV income, shoe contracts and other free market forces that impact the trade of other private companies IS illegal under antitrust laws. The NCAA can't control this because it's literally ILLEGAL for them to control this at all.

So, we have a choice. Does the NCAA and its member institutions want to keep making money off of college athletics or not? If they want to make money, then the controls that you're asking for inherently cannot be in place.

So what should happen? It's easy to point out things that can't happen. Amateurism and "non-profit" are pretty much a joke. We all understand this. Gov't probably needs to intervene and regulate the industry... as much as it pains me to say that.

To me, the answer is more of the opposite: deregulation. Putting aside the issue of direct compensation from colleges to players, why should anyone be limiting a college athlete's ability to sign his or her own deal with a shoe company, take an internship with a company that happens to be owned by a school alum, getting an agent during the recruiting process, or doing anything that any "normal" college student would otherwise be allowed to do? What we're seeing is the logical reaction of market forces: you're not only restricting the ability for these athletes to earn income at the exact time when their market value is the highest for the vast majority of them (as only a fraction of them will ever turn pro), but such athletes actually have income restrictions that no other college students face. No one blinks an eye when a Duke alum business owner hires a "normal" Duke econ major based on his/her affinity for the school. In fact, Duke trumpets how many of their econ majors get *paid* Wall Street internships during college. So, why is it suddenly supposed to change when that Duke econ major happens to also be a basketball or football player? If that simultaneously gives Duke a leg up on the recruiting process, why are we even bothered by it when the financial prospects of "normal" college students is an outright marketing tool for Duke (e.g. "Look at how many of our students got internships at Google and Goldman Sachs!")?

That doesn't mean that there wouldn't be corruption or nefarious people in a deregulated college sports industry. There will always be people that are willing to take one step outside of whatever boundaries you might choose to set. However, I think the core principle is that there is an artificial market disparity caused by the NCAA imposing income restrictions that don't apply to the general college student population. We need to ask ourselves why these regulations are in place at all outside of the warm feelings that we get when we pretend that these athletes are amateurs. Too many fans seem to want their own schools to have their cake (e.g. Power Five membership, huge TV contracts, top salaries for coaches) and eat it, too (e.g. the warm fuzzy feelings of faux amateurism where the players are supposedly playing for the love of their school and nothing else). Then, they're shocked ("I'm shocked that there's gambling in this establishment!") when players get paid under the table and get all sanctimonious when another school gets caught but then ignores that it's about a 99.9% certainty that their own school is doing it, too.

Plus, in practicality, we all know that entities don't willingly choose to make less money. That's just an unrealistic premise on its face. So, I'm all for creating an environment where we're not pretending that this isn't all about money (as evidenced by the TV contracts, coaching salaries, pro-level or better stadium and practice facilities, and pretty much spending dollars on everything other than actual student-athlete compensation).

So basically there's officially no such thing as amateur sport in the college ranks. At that point why should colleges be involved with it at all?

Basketball goes to baseball style relationship with pros. Either you go pro or you commit to staying in school for two years