Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
I don't buy that we can't afford to pay players.
Author Message
mturn017 Offline
ODU Homer
*

Posts: 9,158
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 618
I Root For: Old Dominion
Location: Roanoke, VA
Post: #61
RE: I don't buy that we can't afford to pay players.
(10-01-2019 02:46 AM)chester Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 02:06 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 12:28 AM)chester Wrote:  
(09-30-2019 11:05 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(09-30-2019 10:32 PM)chester Wrote:  A congressional bill (that's going nowhere) would do that:


H.R.2036 - NCAA Act of 2019

IMO, college football and basketball will always be the development leagues for the PRO-pros. (Big Time college athletics has been professionalized for, what, like a century? Ain't no "amateurism" about it.) Is it weird? Yeah, I guess. But in America, that's just the way it is. All these built-in arenas and stadiums...the millions of college fans... Can't imagine that it won't always be this way. Why not just embrace it for what it is and let valuable college athletes have what they're worth?

If they’re worth that then let them earn that but not playing sports for State Universities. The rest can choose a free education and continue playing at the college level or go to a development league and try to make thier way up to the bigs.

There’s plenty of amateurism in college sports. Just not at the top of those two sports. Do you think Zion would have taken the quarter million or whatever he was paid by Duke over signing a multimillion dollar contract with an NBA franchise? No. He was forced to. Who does that serve? Not Zion and not ODU. If any of our players are paid beyond their scholarship and stipend then they’re overpaid. Why feed the corrupt system?

The NCAA saying California will have an unfair recruiting advantage is hilarious. Not untrue, just funny in the hypocrisy

IMO, there's nothing "corrupt" about paying someone whatever a free market would bring them, doesn't matter to me if they're college athletes or something else. What's corrupt is NOT paying them what they're worth. I have yet to hear anyone, anywhere, give a convincing reason why college athletes, specifically, should not be paid what they are worth if they are, in fact, worth more than their scholarship and COA stipend. Exactly what is it about college athletes that makes them different than everyone else. Why should they be treated so?

BTW, an eight year-old study by the National College Players Association and Drexel Uni found that, if D1 basketball operated as the NBA does, each individual Duke basketball player would have been worth $987k in 2011-12.

You bring up an excellent point. So, let me ask you a similar question. If colleges want to form amateur leagues where compensation outside of a scholarship and FCOA is prohibited---why cant they? No student athlete is being forced to play for any school that I am aware of. The association is completely voluntary and they can quit the team or transfer at any time. The colleges never got into athletics to make money. They are institutions of higher learning--not sports franchises. Thats why D1 athletes get scholarships and must actually attend school at the university they play for. So---if institutions of higher learning want a student athlete amateur league--why cant they have one?

That isn't amateurism, though. It's a form a subsidized athletics (professionalized athletics) in which compensation (pay) is artificially capped and labor has to spend most all its money at the company store, so to speak. And I'll remind you that the Cartel was initially against COA stipends (which it now seems so many schools can easily afford. Surprise!)

19th century colleges might not have gotten into sports to make money, but schools certainly do today. Why do lower division schools ever look to move up?


On the other hand---if the kids feel under compensated---they should go pro. There are minor leagues and semi-pro football leagues all over the country (all over the world in fact). If they are good enough to demand really big money at that age---then their gripe should be with the NBA and NFL (and the players association)--who bar them from playing in their leagues right out of high school.

I don't deny there are other options available or that the NFL and NBA ought not bar high schoolers. But, see, to me, that is beside the point. The fact remains, the NCAA's model economically exploits people. I'll ask this question again, what makes college athletes so different than people in other walks of life, in that they ought not receive their full market value? Right is right and wrong is wrong and the NCAA model is, IMO, terribly wrong.

EDIT: If anyone's curious as to what actual, REAL amateur college athletics would look like, here's an example:

A group of students approaches a school official. One of them has some sort of ball in his or her hands. One of the students says, "Excuse me, we've no classes today and are looking for a place to play with this ball."

The official points to an empty field or lot and says "Have at it."

I agree with Attackcoog. Paying players above the table is not corrupt but it's not amateur either. The way it's currently run where bags of money or cars or houses are provided for the players family against NCAA regs is corrupt. And I don't have a problem with stipends and maybe those amounts should be reviewed.

So what makes you think they are worth more than they're getting? Zion was worth more and if the market were truly free he would have gone to the Pelicans instead of Duke. If someone doesn't want to play for what they're getting there's a long list of people behind them that would. So? Free market says that their worth is the cost of admission with the exception of a few blue chips every year who as I said are restricted from earning what they're worth. There's not much market for minor league FB and BB in this country, which is the level the kids we're talking about play at. College athletics are a huge draw because that's peoples alma maters with a hundred of years of tradition in some cases. Not due to the players that cycle through every 4 years. Just because the colleges are making tons of money doesn't mean the athletes are the producers of that income. There are plenty of companies in this country that make billions and pay their workers crap because they are replaceable. Are factory workers at Amazon economically exploited? Some would argue yes but few argue that they deserve a large cut of that company's profits.
Now, sure it might be economically worth it to throw some money at certain players to come play at your school so you can be more successful and earn it back through the gate and donations but that's not the model that was built. So why tear down this system?

Like I said. Let the Zion's go pro, keep college athletics amateur, tighten up the regulations so if players are paid the program facing serious consequences and if the market is truly there for a level in between then let the market handle it. If the level of competition dropped at the college level do you think people are going to stop going to college football and basketball games to go to a minor league game? If not then you have to ask yourself, are these kids the income producers? Or is it the brand? Nobody is talking about college soccer players being exploited just because soccer programs aren't making money but they have the same deal and the same choices.
10-01-2019 07:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
indianasniff Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,492
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 7
I Root For: Toledo
Location:
Post: #62
RE: I don't buy that we can't afford to pay players.
Only way is revenue sharing among all schools. And that is never happening.
10-01-2019 07:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 31,519
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 788
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #63
RE: I don't buy that we can't afford to pay players.
(10-01-2019 02:06 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  You bring up an excellent point. So, let me ask you a similar question. If colleges want to form amateur leagues where compensation outside of a scholarship and FCOA is prohibited---why cant they? No student athlete is being forced to play for any school that I am aware of. The association is completely voluntary and they can quit the team or transfer at any time. The colleges never got into athletics to make money. They are institutions of higher learning--not sports franchises. Thats why D1 athletes get scholarships and must actually attend school at the university they play for. So---if institutions of higher learning want a student athlete amateur league--why cant they have one?

The current NCAA model is not "amateur". Amateur means unpaid, and a scholarship and FCOA is definitely payment. Actual amateur sports at the college level does exist, it's called club level.

Of course, the NCAA isn't interested in club level sports, because the NCAA is definitely not interested in amateur athletics. It is interested in athletics that generate gobs and gobs of money, directly and indirectly, it just wants the great bulk of the profits go to the schools, not the players. And that's because the NCAA is made up of schools, and the schools are making rules that benefit themselves. Since the athletes do get paid in the form of scholarships, it's like a pro league with a very low and tight salary cup for the players but unlimited upside potential for the owners.

Of course, not all players are exploited by the NCAA model. In fact, a large majority of them get paid (in the form of scholarships) an amount that is worth more than their market value. The athletes who get exploited are the big stars that could be making a lot more money. But at most schools, which don't have a Zion or a Manzel, the exploited are the regular students, who get socked with big fees to pay for the athletics that really isn't making money but which school admins want for "prestige" and other ephemeral, alleged purposes. The annual USA Today report documents this exploitation of regular students by the NCAA model.

The California law basically liberates the big stars to make money, so in that sense it reduces some exploitation. it doesn't help the students who get socked with big fees, though.
(This post was last modified: 10-01-2019 08:29 AM by quo vadis.)
10-01-2019 08:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 23,618
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 732
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #64
RE: I don't buy that we can't afford to pay players.
(10-01-2019 02:46 AM)chester Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 02:06 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 12:28 AM)chester Wrote:  
(09-30-2019 11:05 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(09-30-2019 10:32 PM)chester Wrote:  A congressional bill (that's going nowhere) would do that:


H.R.2036 - NCAA Act of 2019

IMO, college football and basketball will always be the development leagues for the PRO-pros. (Big Time college athletics has been professionalized for, what, like a century? Ain't no "amateurism" about it.) Is it weird? Yeah, I guess. But in America, that's just the way it is. All these built-in arenas and stadiums...the millions of college fans... Can't imagine that it won't always be this way. Why not just embrace it for what it is and let valuable college athletes have what they're worth?

If they’re worth that then let them earn that but not playing sports for State Universities. The rest can choose a free education and continue playing at the college level or go to a development league and try to make thier way up to the bigs.

There’s plenty of amateurism in college sports. Just not at the top of those two sports. Do you think Zion would have taken the quarter million or whatever he was paid by Duke over signing a multimillion dollar contract with an NBA franchise? No. He was forced to. Who does that serve? Not Zion and not ODU. If any of our players are paid beyond their scholarship and stipend then they’re overpaid. Why feed the corrupt system?

The NCAA saying California will have an unfair recruiting advantage is hilarious. Not untrue, just funny in the hypocrisy

IMO, there's nothing "corrupt" about paying someone whatever a free market would bring them, doesn't matter to me if they're college athletes or something else. What's corrupt is NOT paying them what they're worth. I have yet to hear anyone, anywhere, give a convincing reason why college athletes, specifically, should not be paid what they are worth if they are, in fact, worth more than their scholarship and COA stipend. Exactly what is it about college athletes that makes them different than everyone else. Why should they be treated so?

BTW, an eight year-old study by the National College Players Association and Drexel Uni found that, if D1 basketball operated as the NBA does, each individual Duke basketball player would have been worth $987k in 2011-12.

You bring up an excellent point. So, let me ask you a similar question. If colleges want to form amateur leagues where compensation outside of a scholarship and FCOA is prohibited---why cant they? No student athlete is being forced to play for any school that I am aware of. The association is completely voluntary and they can quit the team or transfer at any time. The colleges never got into athletics to make money. They are institutions of higher learning--not sports franchises. Thats why D1 athletes get scholarships and must actually attend school at the university they play for. So---if institutions of higher learning want a student athlete amateur league--why cant they have one?

That isn't amateurism, though. It's a form a subsidized athletics (professionalized athletics) in which compensation (pay) is artificially capped and labor has to spend most all its money at the company store, so to speak. And I'll remind you that the Cartel was initially against COA stipends (which it now seems so many schools can easily afford. Surprise!)

19th century colleges might not have gotten into sports to make money, but schools certainly do today. Why do lower division schools ever look to move up?


On the other hand---if the kids feel under compensated---they should go pro. There are minor leagues and semi-pro football leagues all over the country (all over the world in fact). If they are good enough to demand really big money at that age---then their gripe should be with the NBA and NFL (and the players association)--who bar them from playing in their leagues right out of high school.

I don't deny there are other options available or that the NFL and NBA ought not bar high schoolers. But, see, to me, that is beside the point. The fact remains, the NCAA's model economically exploits people. I'll ask this question again, what makes college athletes so different than people in other walks of life, in that they ought not receive their full market value? Right is right and wrong is wrong and the NCAA model is, IMO, terribly wrong.

EDIT: If anyone's curious as to what actual, REAL amateur college athletics would look like, here's an example:

A group of students approaches a school official. One of them has some sort of ball in his or her hands. One of the students says, "Excuse me, we've no classes today and are looking for a place to play with this ball."

The official points to an empty field or lot and says "Have at it."

Club sports and they are played at varying levels. AState will generally toss them some money for uniforms and to offset entry fees and maybe travel. Play rugby? You can get a scholarship.
10-01-2019 10:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 23,618
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 732
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #65
RE: I don't buy that we can't afford to pay players.
(10-01-2019 07:56 AM)indianasniff Wrote:  Only way is revenue sharing among all schools. And that is never happening.

There is no need for revenue sharing.

If payment is ABOVE THE TABLE and the payments COME FROM THE SCHOOL there is essentially no impact on competitive balance in football.

The group of schools that hoover up the 5 and 4 star players will pay for them and have the greatest resources to pay them.

The budget capacity basically follows current recruiting outcomes already.

What might change is the amount of patience that a top program has for a bust. Most schools hang on to a few busts every year just to help graduation numbers and to show they aren't in it only for the winning. You aren't going to shell out $35,000 a year to an offensive lineman who isn't mean enough or tough enough to play at the elite level. You cut him, hire a replacement and move on and he can transfer to a Sun Belt or MAC and get a full ride toward an education plus $4,000.

The possibility of a school quitting football increases because some school is going to find a president who makes the decision to go all in and pay more than they can afford expecting the resulting success will pay for it and it doesn't happen and suddenly they can't make budget.
10-01-2019 10:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,997
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 183
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #66
RE: I don't buy that we can't afford to pay players.
(10-01-2019 10:13 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 07:56 AM)indianasniff Wrote:  Only way is revenue sharing among all schools. And that is never happening.

There is no need for revenue sharing.

If payment is ABOVE THE TABLE and the payments COME FROM THE SCHOOL there is essentially no impact on competitive balance in football.

The group of schools that hoover up the 5 and 4 star players will pay for them and have the greatest resources to pay them.

The budget capacity basically follows current recruiting outcomes already.

What might change is the amount of patience that a top program has for a bust. Most schools hang on to a few busts every year just to help graduation numbers and to show they aren't in it only for the winning. You aren't going to shell out $35,000 a year to an offensive lineman who isn't mean enough or tough enough to play at the elite level. You cut him, hire a replacement and move on and he can transfer to a Sun Belt or MAC and get a full ride toward an education plus $4,000.

The possibility of a school quitting football increases because some school is going to find a president who makes the decision to go all in and pay more than they can afford expecting the resulting success will pay for it and it doesn't happen and suddenly they can't make budget.


Jeremy Bloom did mentioned in his interview how much money that Florida State makes compare to Colorado Mines. The only way for the players to get paid equally at all levels since the California law only help those who are big names and other athletes can not. The way to do it is the schools themselves have to pay the players more. But the whole NCAA system have to change since Power 5 can not control all the money anymore. All the schools have to change. This means all levels of the NCAA, USCAA, NAIA and NCCAA include schools who are not in any orgs yet. You could set up the top level would be 15,000 students or more. Some of the private FBS and military academies are out of the top tier as this would be the pros. A League would be between 8000 to 15,000 range. AA range would be 2000 to 8000 students. AAA would be schools with students below 2000 which NAIA rules could be for them. Each level, the players will be paid equally. AAA players will be paid less than the top level. 15,000 + students schools will have all players be paid the same. That also means schools like Boise State can go into the CFP. No more elite schools or power 5 schools since these laws would neuter their status. You do have D2 schools like Wayne State, Michigan be put at the highest level and schools like Tulsa, Air Force, Army and Navy be put into AA. Unless the military schools get exempt because they are not the same as other schools. That means Tulsa would be the odd man out at the top. Central Oklahoma would take their place in the pro level.
10-01-2019 11:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
vandiver49 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,940
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 174
I Root For: USNA/UTK
Location: West GA
Post: #67
RE: I don't buy that we can't afford to pay players.
(10-01-2019 08:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 02:06 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  You bring up an excellent point. So, let me ask you a similar question. If colleges want to form amateur leagues where compensation outside of a scholarship and FCOA is prohibited---why cant they? No student athlete is being forced to play for any school that I am aware of. The association is completely voluntary and they can quit the team or transfer at any time. The colleges never got into athletics to make money. They are institutions of higher learning--not sports franchises. Thats why D1 athletes get scholarships and must actually attend school at the university they play for. So---if institutions of higher learning want a student athlete amateur league--why cant they have one?

The current NCAA model is not "amateur". Amateur means unpaid, and a scholarship and FCOA is definitely payment. Actual amateur sports at the college level does exist, it's called club level.

Of course, the NCAA isn't interested in club level sports, because the NCAA is definitely not interested in amateur athletics. It is interested in athletics that generate gobs and gobs of money, directly and indirectly, it just wants the great bulk of the profits go to the schools, not the players. And that's because the NCAA is made up of schools, and the schools are making rules that benefit themselves. Since the athletes do get paid in the form of scholarships, it's like a pro league with a very low and tight salary cup for the players but unlimited upside potential for the owners.

Of course, not all players are exploited by the NCAA model. In fact, a large majority of them get paid (in the form of scholarships) an amount that is worth more than their market value. The athletes who get exploited are the big stars that could be making a lot more money. But at most schools, which don't have a Zion or a Manzel, the exploited are the regular students, who get socked with big fees to pay for the athletics that really isn't making money but which school admins want for "prestige" and other ephemeral, alleged purposes. The annual USA Today report documents this exploitation of regular students by the NCAA model.

The California law basically liberates the big stars to make money, so in that sense it reduces some exploitation. it doesn't help the students who get socked with big fees, though.

Then players interested in getting paid should take their grievance up with the NBA and NFL that have age restricting CBA’s that prevent athletes from going pro.
10-01-2019 01:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ClairtonPanther Offline
people need to wake up
*

Posts: 24,106
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation: 639
I Root For: Pitt/Navy
Location: Pittsburgh PA

Donators
Post: #68
RE: I don't buy that we can't afford to pay players.
I think this will find it's way to the Supreme Court.
10-01-2019 07:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 31,519
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 788
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #69
RE: I don't buy that we can't afford to pay players.
(10-01-2019 07:13 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I think this will find it's way to the Supreme Court.

I do too. I think people are dismissing the Commerce Clause argument that the NCAA could make too easily. If that argument prevails, it doesn't matter how many states enact similar laws, the NCAA would win.
10-01-2019 08:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ClairtonPanther Offline
people need to wake up
*

Posts: 24,106
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation: 639
I Root For: Pitt/Navy
Location: Pittsburgh PA

Donators
Post: #70
RE: I don't buy that we can't afford to pay players.
(10-01-2019 08:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 07:13 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I think this will find it's way to the Supreme Court.

I do too. I think people are dismissing the Commerce Clause argument that the NCAA could make too easily. If that argument prevails, it doesn't matter how many states enact similar laws, the NCAA would win.

I think that Title IX will be the deal breaker for this entire thing. Commerce Clause is a very intriguing argument as well.
10-01-2019 08:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 31,519
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 788
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #71
RE: I don't buy that we can't afford to pay players.
(10-01-2019 08:25 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 08:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 07:13 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I think this will find it's way to the Supreme Court.

I do too. I think people are dismissing the Commerce Clause argument that the NCAA could make too easily. If that argument prevails, it doesn't matter how many states enact similar laws, the NCAA would win.

I think that Title IX will be the deal breaker for this entire thing. Commerce Clause is a very intriguing argument as well.

If other states enact laws that involve the school playing players, then IMO Title IX will definitely come in to play - the schools would have to pay the male and female athletes equally.

If it's restricted to players signing deals with outside companies, then no.
10-01-2019 08:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,997
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 183
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #72
RE: I don't buy that we can't afford to pay players.
(10-01-2019 08:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 08:25 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 08:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 07:13 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I think this will find it's way to the Supreme Court.

I do too. I think people are dismissing the Commerce Clause argument that the NCAA could make too easily. If that argument prevails, it doesn't matter how many states enact similar laws, the NCAA would win.

I think that Title IX will be the deal breaker for this entire thing. Commerce Clause is a very intriguing argument as well.

If other states enact laws that involve the school playing players, then IMO Title IX will definitely come in to play - the schools would have to pay the male and female athletes equally.

If it's restricted to players signing deals with outside companies, then no.


The schools would be in trouble when no female athletes could get an endorsement. It is the men's sports of football, basketball and baseball is the money makers in the pro.
10-01-2019 09:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 29,920
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1329
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #73
RE: I don't buy that we can't afford to pay players.
(10-01-2019 08:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 08:25 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 08:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 07:13 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I think this will find it's way to the Supreme Court.

I do too. I think people are dismissing the Commerce Clause argument that the NCAA could make too easily. If that argument prevails, it doesn't matter how many states enact similar laws, the NCAA would win.

I think that Title IX will be the deal breaker for this entire thing. Commerce Clause is a very intriguing argument as well.

If other states enact laws that involve the school playing players, then IMO Title IX will definitely come in to play - the schools would have to pay the male and female athletes equally.

If it's restricted to players signing deals with outside companies, then no.

Thats why I'd run the money through the NCAA and have the schools pay "dues" that cover that cost.
10-01-2019 09:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 31,519
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 788
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #74
RE: I don't buy that we can't afford to pay players.
(10-01-2019 09:07 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 08:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 08:25 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 08:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 07:13 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I think this will find it's way to the Supreme Court.

I do too. I think people are dismissing the Commerce Clause argument that the NCAA could make too easily. If that argument prevails, it doesn't matter how many states enact similar laws, the NCAA would win.

I think that Title IX will be the deal breaker for this entire thing. Commerce Clause is a very intriguing argument as well.

If other states enact laws that involve the school playing players, then IMO Title IX will definitely come in to play - the schools would have to pay the male and female athletes equally.

If it's restricted to players signing deals with outside companies, then no.


The schools would be in trouble when no female athletes could get an endorsement. It is the men's sports of football, basketball and baseball is the money makers in the pro.

I don't see why. Title IX doesn't require that Nike and Bob's Discount Auto Parts endorse male and female athletes equally.
10-02-2019 07:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TripleA Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 46,911
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 1516
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location:

Memphis Hall of Fame
Post: #75
RE: I don't buy that we can't afford to pay players.
Why does everybody keep saying that schools have to pay players? No, the state legislation now being passed gives athletes the opportunity to earn outside income from third parties by doing commercials, signing autographs, etc.

It has nothing to do with schools paying players, and thus nothing to do with Title IX.
10-02-2019 09:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
loki_the_bubba Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,882
Joined: Jul 2010
Reputation: 178
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #76
RE: I don't buy that we can't afford to pay players.
(10-02-2019 07:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 09:07 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 08:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 08:25 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 08:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I do too. I think people are dismissing the Commerce Clause argument that the NCAA could make too easily. If that argument prevails, it doesn't matter how many states enact similar laws, the NCAA would win.

I think that Title IX will be the deal breaker for this entire thing. Commerce Clause is a very intriguing argument as well.

If other states enact laws that involve the school playing players, then IMO Title IX will definitely come in to play - the schools would have to pay the male and female athletes equally.

If it's restricted to players signing deals with outside companies, then no.


The schools would be in trouble when no female athletes could get an endorsement. It is the men's sports of football, basketball and baseball is the money makers in the pro.

I don't see why. Title IX doesn't require that Nike and Bob's Discount Auto Parts endorse male and female athletes equally.

No, Title IX will not apply. But there will be pressure from some groups to make things 'fair'.
10-02-2019 09:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 31,519
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 788
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #77
RE: I don't buy that we can't afford to pay players.
(10-02-2019 09:07 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  
(10-02-2019 07:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 09:07 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 08:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 08:25 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I think that Title IX will be the deal breaker for this entire thing. Commerce Clause is a very intriguing argument as well.

If other states enact laws that involve the school playing players, then IMO Title IX will definitely come in to play - the schools would have to pay the male and female athletes equally.

If it's restricted to players signing deals with outside companies, then no.


The schools would be in trouble when no female athletes could get an endorsement. It is the men's sports of football, basketball and baseball is the money makers in the pro.

I don't see why. Title IX doesn't require that Nike and Bob's Discount Auto Parts endorse male and female athletes equally.

No, Title IX will not apply. But there will be pressure from some groups to make things 'fair'.

I don't think that pressure will amount to much. One reason being that the vast majority of male athletes won't make anything either.

This law really is the "Ed O'Bannon" Law. It's tailored to guys like O'Bannon whose earning potential actually peaked in college, as he failed in the NBA.

They are actually a very small number of people, because (a) the number of college players with serious endorsement potential is small, and (b) of that small number, most of them will have even bigger earnings potential in the NFL, NBA, etc. and so don't really need this law.

I mean, could Anthony Davis have made a few hundred thousand in endorsements in 2012 when he was leading Kentucky to a national title? Sure. Now that he makes $25 million a year in the NBA is that something he regrets missing out on? I doubt it.

But an O'Bannon, or a Manzel, has regrets.
(This post was last modified: 10-02-2019 09:41 AM by quo vadis.)
10-02-2019 09:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,997
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 183
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #78
RE: I don't buy that we can't afford to pay players.
(10-02-2019 09:01 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Why does everybody keep saying that schools have to pay players? No, the state legislation now being passed gives athletes the opportunity to earn outside income from third parties by doing commercials, signing autographs, etc.

It has nothing to do with schools paying players, and thus nothing to do with Title IX.


It would make the NCAA men's basketball shoe scandal and the aunt Becky scandal looks minor league and would make things worst that the whole California bill and others make the corruption worst.
10-02-2019 02:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 29,920
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1329
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #79
RE: I don't buy that we can't afford to pay players.
(10-02-2019 09:01 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Why does everybody keep saying that schools have to pay players? No, the state legislation now being passed gives athletes the opportunity to earn outside income from third parties by doing commercials, signing autographs, etc.

It has nothing to do with schools paying players, and thus nothing to do with Title IX.

Exactly.
10-02-2019 07:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 29,920
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1329
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #80
RE: I don't buy that we can't afford to pay players.
(10-02-2019 09:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-02-2019 09:07 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  
(10-02-2019 07:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 09:07 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  
(10-01-2019 08:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  If other states enact laws that involve the school playing players, then IMO Title IX will definitely come in to play - the schools would have to pay the male and female athletes equally.

If it's restricted to players signing deals with outside companies, then no.


The schools would be in trouble when no female athletes could get an endorsement. It is the men's sports of football, basketball and baseball is the money makers in the pro.

I don't see why. Title IX doesn't require that Nike and Bob's Discount Auto Parts endorse male and female athletes equally.

No, Title IX will not apply. But there will be pressure from some groups to make things 'fair'.

I don't think that pressure will amount to much. One reason being that the vast majority of male athletes won't make anything either.

This law really is the "Ed O'Bannon" Law. It's tailored to guys like O'Bannon whose earning potential actually peaked in college, as he failed in the NBA.

They are actually a very small number of people, because (a) the number of college players with serious endorsement potential is small, and (b) of that small number, most of them will have even bigger earnings potential in the NFL, NBA, etc. and so don't really need this law.

I mean, could Anthony Davis have made a few hundred thousand in endorsements in 2012 when he was leading Kentucky to a national title? Sure. Now that he makes $25 million a year in the NBA is that something he regrets missing out on? I doubt it.

But an O'Bannon, or a Manzel, has regrets.

Honestly, based on actual real world economics almost no college athletes are worth endorsement dollars. NFL players are far more well known and popular than college players---yet only a handful of NFL players per team have endorsement deals. The vast majority of NFL players do not. So college football, that has about 10% of the ratings of the NFL, is unlikley to have many players at all that could attract endorsement deals that actually make economic sense for a corporate entity or business. Additionally, part of the risk of a player endorsement deal is that the player will do something that attracts negative attention. The risk of something like that occurring a deal with a 28 year old NFL player is moderately high---but its exponentially higher with a 19 year old kid just barely out of high school. There would certainly be ZERO real world endorsement value for a high school recruit thats never even played a college game or ever appeared on television.

Thus any endorsement deals given to recruits would basically be enticements to come play for the school (pay for play) and not actually "endorsements". Thats why the olympic model wont work in college sports. Its a different world.
(This post was last modified: 10-02-2019 07:59 PM by Attackcoog.)
10-02-2019 07:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2019 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2019 MyBB Group.