Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
Author Message
GoldenWarrior11 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,836
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 234
I Root For: Marquette, BE
Location: Chicago
Post: #21
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
I don't believe there is an easy cookie-cutter solution on how to "fix" the current tides of collegiate sports, mostly because the NCAA has ignored for years the changing landscape that it has become. I view this bill, and states' willingness (on both sides) to push it through, as a match to a powder keig - in hopes that it will somehow burn the existing hypocritical system down (without any real solution on how to reform on a macro-level).

At the bare minimum, this bill's DNA will be simply to change how the money is being funneled to the elite athletes in football and men's basketball. Instead of shoe companies doing backdoor deals, or wealthy boosters laundering money, it will now be legal for athletes to receive compensation - and let's be honest: an overwhelming majority of that pot will be going to football and men's basketball players. I don't know what the response would then be from Title IX supporters, when women's teams aren't getting the same cut of the pie from sponsors (look at what the USWNT faces annually).

To the extreme, this could be the end of the NCAA as we know it. With California, and other states, following the same legislation (but perhaps with different expectations and/or wording), we could see the rise of regional governance bodies for collegiate sports (which would definitely negatively affect the national competition of collegiate sport).

While the prior model absolutely did not work perfectly before, there at least was the idea that a governing body (NCAA) could hammer teams that blatantly broke the rules with illegal recruiting and compensating players. With this new legislation, there is absolutely nothing to stop boosters from two competing schools paying top dollar for a sponsorship fee from their respective businesses to go to "their" school (which is fine for a free market, but then college sports [well, really, football and men's basketball] has effectively turned into free agency).

In summary, I have no idea what will happen, but I am definitely worried that the ramifications of such a bill were not fully thought out, and that the NCAA will not be able to put the toothpaste back into the tube.
10-02-2019 10:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,151
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 566
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #22
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
(10-02-2019 10:17 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  I don't believe there is an easy cookie-cutter solution on how to "fix" the current tides of collegiate sports, mostly because the NCAA has ignored for years the changing landscape that it has become. I view this bill, and states' willingness (on both sides) to push it through, as a match to a powder keig - in hopes that it will somehow burn the existing hypocritical system down (without any real solution on how to reform on a macro-level).

At the bare minimum, this bill's DNA will be simply to change how the money is being funneled to the elite athletes in football and men's basketball. Instead of shoe companies doing backdoor deals, or wealthy boosters laundering money, it will now be legal for athletes to receive compensation - and let's be honest: an overwhelming majority of that pot will be going to football and men's basketball players. I don't know what the response would then be from Title IX supporters, when women's teams aren't getting the same cut of the pie from sponsors (look at what the USWNT faces annually).

To the extreme, this could be the end of the NCAA as we know it. With California, and other states, following the same legislation (but perhaps with different expectations and/or wording), we could see the rise of regional governance bodies for collegiate sports (which would definitely negatively affect the national competition of collegiate sport).

While the prior model absolutely did not work perfectly before, there at least was the idea that a governing body (NCAA) could hammer teams that blatantly broke the rules with illegal recruiting and compensating players. With this new legislation, there is absolutely nothing to stop boosters from two competing schools paying top dollar for a sponsorship fee from their respective businesses to go to "their" school (which is fine for a free market, but then college sports [well, really, football and men's basketball] has effectively turned into free agency).

In summary, I have no idea what will happen, but I am definitely worried that the ramifications of such a bill were not fully thought out, and that the NCAA will not be able to put the toothpaste back into the tube.

Here's how I see it: the California bill is doing the *schools* a favor. (To be sure, it might not be doing the NCAA as a governing entity a favor.) The Olympic model (which is essentially what the California bill provides for here) is a way for schools to avoid Title IX issues while relieving the growing pressure public pressure regarding athlete compensation for the football and basketball players that earn revenue for those schools.

The USWNT dispute is about direct compensation from US Soccer, which is more akin to if schools were to directly compensate players that is NOT allowed under the California bill. In contrast, Alex Morgan and other USWNT players have been free to obtain their own endorsement deals at market value, so there hasn't been any limitation on that front. Similarly, any direct compensation from schools to athletes (such as unionization efforts) would absolutely result in Title IX issues where all athletes (regardless of the sport) would need to be paid equally. The Olympic model eliminates that type of concern because Nike/Adidas/any other third party can choose to pay whoever they want at whatever rate that they want without having a Title IX issue.

Is the California bill a perfect solution? No. Could there be abuses of the new system? Yes. However, to use the old adage, don't let perfection be the enemy of good. The current system features abuses, the huge influence of donors, the entrenchment of the most powerful athletic programs, and every single other problem that the opponents of the California bill claims that will occur... and they're happening *today* and it's happening under the table. I'm a large believer that sunlight is the best disinfectant. All of these "bad" things are happening now and they're occurring under-the-table. The way to level the playing field is to actually get it all on the table so everyone knows what they're actually dealing with here.

And once again, the schools are NOT paying for this compensation of athletes directly at all. No sports need to be cut and no Title IX issues need to be addressed under the California bill. As others have alluded to above, this is a VERY big difference in the eyes of the law and in terms of school financial situations.

Separately, I don't believe that we're going to see any regionalization of rules and governing bodies under the new paradigm. This effort is going coast-to-coast with bipartisan support across all demographics and regions. When push comes to shove, the state of Alabama isn't going to let California and Florida schools have any type of legal advantage over them. This will ultimately be a national effort at the end of the day (which, in a backhanded way, is good news for the NCAA in the sense that it would still have a purpose as a national governing body).
(This post was last modified: 10-02-2019 10:38 AM by Frank the Tank.)
10-02-2019 10:34 AM
Visit this user's website 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: #23
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
(10-02-2019 10:06 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(10-02-2019 09:35 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  If they turn it into a minor league sport, with salaries and free agency, then they'll lose the fans. College football will become just like the NBA G-League, or AAA baseball. And it'll have similar fan support. I don't think that's what anyone wants.

I see this argument a lot, but I just don't buy that very many fans will make that distinction or care. Heck, I already see college football and basketball as minor league sports except with a much stronger emotional connection. To argue that they are anything other than that *today* (especially at the Power 5 level) is being quite naive. There's a vocal old school segment that might superficially believe that the sky is falling, but I've found in all of my years that the most hollow threat of all threats in the entire universe is a sports fan claiming that he/she will not watch his/her favorite team because of [insert reason]. As soon as they start winning, all of those supposed dealbreaker principles go by the wayside.

I *do* think that fans care that the name of their alma mater is on the jersey (e.g. there's a big difference between the emotional connection to the Ohio State Buckeyes versus the Columbus Clippers), but I honestly don't believe whether players get compensated make any more difference than the fact that all of the coaches (who are generally the highest paid public employees in virtually every state), professors, administrators, the non-athlete students that clean up the stadiums/facilities and tutor athletes, and literally every single other person associated with the athletic program receives some sort of compensation.

It doesn't compute in my brain that we can have this massive college sports industrial complex financed by billions of dollars of TV revenue, donations, and sponsorships and we can then sit here and claim that the actual athletes that fuel all of that getting compensated would suddenly be a bridge too far. I'd buy it more if head coaches were paid at the same rate as normal professor (as opposed to 50 professors) and schools decided to return all of the money from ESPN/Fox/CBS/NBC and Nike/Adidas/Under Armour. Otherwise, it's really nonsensical. Millennials and Generation Z certainly don't care (and if anything, are the ones that are the most flabbergasted that their athletic peers aren't being paid with all of the money being thrown around with college sports).

To paraphrase Jerry Seinfeld, we're all rooting for laundry. I'm certainly not going to be bothered if Illinois starts winning more football and basketball games because it can start drawing more 5-star recruits because our state is looking to pass a law that matches the California law to allow for third party athlete compensation. Heck, this might be the best way for schools like ours to actually have some type of competitive advantage over Michigan and Ohio State. If we're just competing on tradition and branding, we lose pretty much every time. If we can start competing based on compensation, we can actually start winning some of those recruiting battles. The status quo actually entrenches the power of the elite programs, whereas a more open free market actually allows schools that don't have the decades of branding and tradition to compete better in the marketplace because the color of green is rational and unbiased.

I make the distinction, and I care. I watch college sports, not minor league sports. Once they start paying players I'm out. It's not a hollow threat. I quit the NFL when the Oilers left. I quit MLB when the money-changers forced the Astros out of the NL. Maybe I am the anomaly. Maybe not. But I will cease to care when this happens.
10-02-2019 10:36 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: #24
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
(10-02-2019 10:06 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  It doesn't compute in my brain that we can have this massive college sports industrial complex financed by billions of dollars of TV revenue, donations, and sponsorships and we can then sit here and claim that the actual athletes that fuel all of that getting compensated would suddenly be a bridge too far.

Here's the thing, though: Would Zion have been able to make some pretty big endorsement bucks while at Duke last year? Yes.

But, would Zion have made those same bucks if he was in the D-League? I very much doubt it.

So yes, the athletes do "fuel" this to an extent. But, a significant part of their value is that they are representing universities that are themselves big brand names with huge fan bases and lots of national TV exposure. Zion playing for Duke is worth something, Zion playing for the Albany Salmoncatchers of the ABL is worth a lot less.

So i can imagine that big schools might try to capture some of this value by insisting on a cut of whatever endorsement deals their players sign.

Kind of like how record companies are getting artists to sign "360 degree" contracts that give the record company a cut of concert ticket sales, merchandising, celebrity endorsements, etc.

Of course in the end, the market will sort that out. But the point for me is let's not pretend the star athlete is the *only* driver of value here. The school uniform matters greatly too.
(This post was last modified: 10-02-2019 10:39 AM by quo vadis.)
10-02-2019 10:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mpurdy22 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 642
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 12
I Root For: Miami (OH)
Location: Sandusky, Ohio
Post: #25
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
I am not for the pay for play, but understand the argument and the curiosity of the unknown wants me to see it happen and see how the dominoes fall.

I tend to agree with what Tim Tebow said however and I think the "ME..ME" culture will end up rearing its ugly head and have a negative affect in the locker room. You are going to have a blend of kids in a locker room getting compensated alongside kids that are merely walk-ons. Could be tough for coaching staffs to manage. Perceived preferential treatment might be a constant battle with staffs and athletes.

Then, will this trickle down to High School? Why couldn't say someone like Zion Williamson get endorsements before he even enrolls in college?? It's a slippery slope. Guess the trend is leaning that way and we'll have to brace for impact.
10-02-2019 10:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TodgeRodge Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,542
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 177
I Root For: Todge
Location: Westlake
Post: #26
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
I am certain it will be a disaster after all it is coming from the state of disastrous laws that are passed constantly with no thought to long term consequences

in addition to many of the points already being made that I agree with on many of them here are some issues I see

1. there will surely be lawsuits when women players are not being paid on the same level as men.....the argument by some will be "well the market says they are not worth it" and the lawsuit back will be just like women's Olympic soccer (the big #WhereIsMine in sports now).....they will say that the reason women are not as in demand is because the schools have never built them big huge stajiums, hired expensive coaches, built massive training facilities ect. and promoted their sports the same

just like women's Olympic soccer the reality that women's pro soccer has no demand and thus the Olympic stars should accept what they will get will be ignored and the demands and lawsuits will be made.....and lets remember in women's Olympic soccer those "big stars" do get endorsements.....and so far they are not suing because they are less than men......who knows if they will, but they are suing for "equal pay" even though the demand for their services and product is not equal.....and in college since right now it is endorsements that are the proposed pay they will demand equality and that will start with "investment" in their sports.......which many have already pointed out will lead to the dissolution of many men;s AND women;s sports as schools try and contain the cost

2. with the above in mind there will be some SMALL benefit to "women kind" overall, but of course the long term consequences will be a disaster

there will be boosters that will pick select women's programs to support like UConn women's BB or Tennessee women's BB or Nebraska women's VB or OU Softball

but the VAST majority of those programs at most schools will get little to no support and when it becomes 2 or 4 schools that can never be recruited against because they have the money pipeline (it is already getting close to that now) you will see a lot of other programs tossing it in because it is simply not worth it and or they will drop down to where the academic support is much lower and the competition more equal (for a group that for the most part comes out of HS with little to no hope of EVER being pro so the educational support matters to them)

3. as others have stated programs will be cut for men and women that will just lessen opportunity.....because of the cost of trying to keep up, threatened title XI (that may or may not prevail, but will lead to admins staying "cut it") and on and on

4. students will be viewed as employees......some will try and say they are now university employees and some will now tray and say they are employees or endorsers of the companies paying them for their likeness

when the raping, robbing, killing, assaults ect start rolling in a lot of those paying the money (and possibly a lot of the schools even if they are not paying directly) will not be prepared to be drug into those lawsuits and those boycotts and those other legal proceedings or even those associations

and trust me that will be happening FAST....hey cool your 10 dealer new car group is now known for paying a 2 time rapist $100,000 to waste air and space on a university campus!!!!!....better yet then attempts to try and get it out there that you knew about one or both of hem while still paying them and thus the victims are coming after your deep pockets for endangering them and their university experience!!!......but hey any pub for your business is good pub right!!!!

5. the front companies and shell companies that will be popping up both to shield from #4 above and to simply turn booster donations into a payment machine will be astounding

what constituted and "endorsement" and who is allowed to give one?.......so registered Bahama Corp #24 with an officer group that includes university athletics and academic administrators as the BOR and their main business is "financing and investments" with assets of $50 million dollars can now pay endorsements to "promote their brand"?......ok yea sure that makes sense

you are going to see donor monies being funneled into these "companies" left and right

some might say that is OK because the players are getting paid, but eventually that will come back on them because people (females especially) will wonder why women are not getting paid a part of that (especially when they find out the "company" is basically a front for the university athletics department) and the lawsuits will fly......and probably the federal and state tax rulings that will eat up a ton of that cash eventually

the way to stop all this is to put in very strict academic qualifiers for HS freshman, probably not let freshman play at all, put in academic grade and degree progress qualifiers, do NOT let the university dump a student that is not making that progress (or their "pay" if getting any) and do NOT return the scholarship to the schools if the student fails out or is arrested until a full 5 years has passed

this way when schools are down to 60 players at some point because 25 "not here to play school" guys have failed out, been arrested, or are not academically qualified to play over the past 3 years their program will be in a world of hurt....much stricter bowl bans on schools for ACADEMIC performance and make NCAA basketball payouts much more tied to academic performance

it would help if the regional accreditation boards worked with the NCAA and had ANY backbone at all to prevent fake degree plans, but they are a scam of their own and an enforcement joke so little chance of that happening
10-02-2019 10:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,151
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 566
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #27
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
(10-02-2019 10:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-02-2019 10:06 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  It doesn't compute in my brain that we can have this massive college sports industrial complex financed by billions of dollars of TV revenue, donations, and sponsorships and we can then sit here and claim that the actual athletes that fuel all of that getting compensated would suddenly be a bridge too far.

Here's the thing, though: Would Zion have been able to make some pretty big endorsement bucks while at Duke last year? Yes.

But, would Zion have made those same bucks if he was in the D-League? I very much doubt it.

So yes, the athletes do "fuel" this to an extent. But, a significant part of their value is that they are representing universities that are themselves big brand names with huge fan bases and lots of national TV exposure. Zion playing for Duke is worth something, Zion playing for the Albany Salmoncatchers of the ABL is worth a lot less.

So i can imagine that big schools might try to capture some of this value by insisting on a cut of whatever endorsement deals their players sign.

Kind of like how record companies are getting artists to sign "360 degree" contracts that give the record company a cut of concert ticket sales, merchandising, celebrity endorsements, etc.

Of course in the end, the market will sort that out. But the point for me is let's not pretend the star athlete is the *only* driver of value here. The school uniform matters greatly too.

Sure, but it's all circular and symbiotic because the schools are deriving value from having those elite level athletes. Duke basketball has massive brand value, but it only has such brand value because it has a consistent standard of having among the best teams in Division I college basketball. It can't just start trotting out Division III athletes and retain that brand value. The Duke brand certainly adds to the endorsement potential of Zion - there's no question about that. However, it also takes players like Zion and other top level athletes to sustain that Duke brand.

In fact, that's what makes college football and basketball so uniquely popular compared to, say, college baseball. There's a symbiotic merger of a brand that where there's an intense emotional connection (the school itself) and the top athletes for that particular level. If you take away the school brand, then you have minor league sports teams without the intense emotional connection. If you take away the top athletes for that particular level, then you have something more akin to college baseball (which isn't nearly as popular) or Division II/III sports that draw little interest.

All of it is intertwined for college football and basketball. You need both the school brands AND the elite athletes for the whole economic system to work.

FWIW, you could say the exact same thing about pro sports. LeBron James doesn't make the money that he makes today if the NBA didn't exist. You could argue that his market value is nothing if he's not on an NBA roster. However, the NBA doesn't work as an entity if elite athletes like LeBron James don't join their league. The Lakers can't just trot out random players on the court any more than Duke can and expect the multi-billion dollar valuation that they have as a franchise. You need BOTH the branding AND the elite talent for the economic system to run correctly.
10-02-2019 10:56 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Eldonabe Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,352
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 167
I Root For: All but Uconn
Location: Van by the River
Post: #28
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
(10-01-2019 10:57 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  We need to reform the NCAA where everybody is on the same level playing field, put a cap on how 5 star, 4 star and 3 star prospects, salary caps on coaches, freeze stadium expansions on the larger P5 schools, tv contract that pays every school equally, profit sharing on the merchandise as a whole, etc. We do not need these stupid laws.

Yup - and that is the stuff of unicorns and fairly tales......
10-02-2019 11:12 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Eldonabe Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,352
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 167
I Root For: All but Uconn
Location: Van by the River
Post: #29
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
The NCAA is all done as the governing body of Major College Sports. They are not equipped to govern this kind of stuff, they suck at governing what they are supposed to govern now, and this is fractionally as complicated as what these new rules will look like.

These schools will all band together and come up with some kid of model that may as well be professional sports.......... There is WAAAYYYY too much money to be made to keep their wagon hitched to the NCAA.
10-02-2019 11:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoldenWarrior11 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,836
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 234
I Root For: Marquette, BE
Location: Chicago
Post: #30
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
Another added wrinkle that will surely be revealed will be how these kids, and yes - they are still kids, will be managing their money. Going off of the data from Going for Broke, by the time they have been retired for two years, 78 percent of former NFL players have gone bankrupt or are under financial stress; within five years of retirement, an estimated 60 percent of former NBA players are broke.

Players often turn pro in football and men's basketball by their very early twenties, right out of college (if not before that). They generally have little-to-no business experience. Unlike people who inherit their wealth or make it in business, they don't necessarily have the connections to people who are used to handling a lot of money. When you hand a 22-year-old a few hundred thousand dollars, it's most likely going to be spent (whether by themselves, or family members or friends). It is not an age in which you typically find excellent long-range planning skills.

So, there already is massive amounts of data about the poor management and spending habits by young adults (often times leading to bankruptcy soon after in life) in the NFL and NBA; now we are going to be giving those same stakeholders similar amounts of money, but only earlier in their life?

Like I said - I recognize the current (and former) model did not work; but this will open Pandora's Box to a plethora of new problems that I do not think legislators are aware of or have really thought out. Once everyone goes down this path, there is no going back, and no one can accurately predict it will be better (or worse). Just seems like a substantial risk to take in order to transform the status quo.
10-02-2019 11:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
e-parade Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 375
Joined: Apr 2015
Reputation: 39
I Root For: UMass
Location:
Post: #31
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
(10-02-2019 11:21 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Another added wrinkle that will surely be revealed will be how these kids, and yes - they are still kids, will be managing their money. Going off of the data from Going for Broke, by the time they have been retired for two years, 78 percent of former NFL players have gone bankrupt or are under financial stress; within five years of retirement, an estimated 60 percent of former NBA players are broke.

Players often turn pro in football and men's basketball by their very early twenties, right out of college (if not before that). They generally have little-to-no business experience. Unlike people who inherit their wealth or make it in business, they don't necessarily have the connections to people who are used to handling a lot of money. When you hand a 22-year-old a few hundred thousand dollars, it's most likely going to be spent (whether by themselves, or family members or friends). It is not an age in which you typically find excellent long-range planning skills.

So, there already is massive amounts of data about the poor management and spending habits by young adults (often times leading to bankruptcy soon after in life) in the NFL and NBA; now we are going to be giving those same stakeholders similar amounts of money, but only earlier in their life?

Like I said - I recognize the current (and former) model did not work; but this will open Pandora's Box to a plethora of new problems that I do not think legislators are aware of or have really thought out. Once everyone goes down this path, there is no going back, and no one can accurately predict it will be better (or worse). Just seems like a substantial risk to take in order to transform the status quo.

Then maybe start teaching useful skills like money management in classes (to all students).

That's an issue separate to this, but it's something that needs to happen.
10-02-2019 11:42 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GreenBison Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,049
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 51
I Root For: The Herd!!!
Location: B'ville
Post: #32
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
(10-02-2019 11:21 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Another added wrinkle that will surely be revealed will be how these kids, and yes - they are still kids, will be managing their money. Going off of the data from Going for Broke, by the time they have been retired for two years, 78 percent of former NFL players have gone bankrupt or are under financial stress; within five years of retirement, an estimated 60 percent of former NBA players are broke.

Players often turn pro in football and men's basketball by their very early twenties, right out of college (if not before that). They generally have little-to-no business experience. Unlike people who inherit their wealth or make it in business, they don't necessarily have the connections to people who are used to handling a lot of money. When you hand a 22-year-old a few hundred thousand dollars, it's most likely going to be spent (whether by themselves, or family members or friends). It is not an age in which you typically find excellent long-range planning skills.

So, there already is massive amounts of data about the poor management and spending habits by young adults (often times leading to bankruptcy soon after in life) in the NFL and NBA; now we are going to be giving those same stakeholders similar amounts of money, but only earlier in their life?

Like I said - I recognize the current (and former) model did not work; but this will open Pandora's Box to a plethora of new problems that I do not think legislators are aware of or have really thought out. Once everyone goes down this path, there is no going back, and no one can accurately predict it will be better (or worse). Just seems like a substantial risk to take in order to transform the status quo.

Excellent point. You know what else is going to be a problem? All of these kids are going to try to get in on this regardless of their athletic talent. They will be trying to monitize their YT Channels, Instagram Influencing, etc. Heck they won't have to be the most talented, they just need a great personality and be creative.

How much of a distraction is this going to be? Sorry coach I can't make it to the team meeting, I have a video shoot where I stand to make $2k from it. These kids will be doing this even if they only make an couple extra $100 a week. ALL of them are going to be distracted with trying to cash in on this.
(This post was last modified: 10-02-2019 11:56 AM by GreenBison.)
10-02-2019 11:53 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,151
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 566
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #33
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
(10-02-2019 11:42 AM)e-parade Wrote:  
(10-02-2019 11:21 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Another added wrinkle that will surely be revealed will be how these kids, and yes - they are still kids, will be managing their money. Going off of the data from Going for Broke, by the time they have been retired for two years, 78 percent of former NFL players have gone bankrupt or are under financial stress; within five years of retirement, an estimated 60 percent of former NBA players are broke.

Players often turn pro in football and men's basketball by their very early twenties, right out of college (if not before that). They generally have little-to-no business experience. Unlike people who inherit their wealth or make it in business, they don't necessarily have the connections to people who are used to handling a lot of money. When you hand a 22-year-old a few hundred thousand dollars, it's most likely going to be spent (whether by themselves, or family members or friends). It is not an age in which you typically find excellent long-range planning skills.

So, there already is massive amounts of data about the poor management and spending habits by young adults (often times leading to bankruptcy soon after in life) in the NFL and NBA; now we are going to be giving those same stakeholders similar amounts of money, but only earlier in their life?

Like I said - I recognize the current (and former) model did not work; but this will open Pandora's Box to a plethora of new problems that I do not think legislators are aware of or have really thought out. Once everyone goes down this path, there is no going back, and no one can accurately predict it will be better (or worse). Just seems like a substantial risk to take in order to transform the status quo.

Then maybe start teaching useful skills like money management in classes (to all students).

That's an issue separate to this, but it's something that needs to happen.

Yes, most of America could use money management classes, particularly people in high school and college. This isn't a problem that's specific to athletes. (It's only more high profile because athletes are more famous than most people.)
10-02-2019 11:58 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,151
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 566
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #34
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
(10-02-2019 11:53 AM)GreenBison Wrote:  
(10-02-2019 11:21 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Another added wrinkle that will surely be revealed will be how these kids, and yes - they are still kids, will be managing their money. Going off of the data from Going for Broke, by the time they have been retired for two years, 78 percent of former NFL players have gone bankrupt or are under financial stress; within five years of retirement, an estimated 60 percent of former NBA players are broke.

Players often turn pro in football and men's basketball by their very early twenties, right out of college (if not before that). They generally have little-to-no business experience. Unlike people who inherit their wealth or make it in business, they don't necessarily have the connections to people who are used to handling a lot of money. When you hand a 22-year-old a few hundred thousand dollars, it's most likely going to be spent (whether by themselves, or family members or friends). It is not an age in which you typically find excellent long-range planning skills.

So, there already is massive amounts of data about the poor management and spending habits by young adults (often times leading to bankruptcy soon after in life) in the NFL and NBA; now we are going to be giving those same stakeholders similar amounts of money, but only earlier in their life?

Like I said - I recognize the current (and former) model did not work; but this will open Pandora's Box to a plethora of new problems that I do not think legislators are aware of or have really thought out. Once everyone goes down this path, there is no going back, and no one can accurately predict it will be better (or worse). Just seems like a substantial risk to take in order to transform the status quo.

Excellent point. You know what else is going to be a problem? All of these kids are going to try to get in on this regardless of their athletic talent. They will be trying to monitize their YT Channels, Instagram Influencing, etc. Heck they won't have to be the most talented, they just need a great personality and be creative.

How much of a distraction is this going to be? Sorry coach I can't make it to the team meeting, I have a video shoot where I stand to make $2k from it. These kids will be doing this even if they only make an couple extra $100 a week. ALL of them are going to be distracted with trying to cash in on this.

Is this any more of a distraction than a normal student that has a minimum wage job that also has to balance classes and extracurricular activities? More of a distraction than parties, co-eds, alcohol and everything else that comes with being an athlete (or any other student) on campus? More of a distraction than, say, actual classes and homework?

Frankly, athletes have among the best time management skills out of any college students, which is a large reason why they're generally highly desired by employers after they graduate. They don't have time to dawdle in the way that, say, I did as a college student (where I felt that having to wake up for any class before 11 am was death).

No one seems to be bothered that Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg devoted waaaay more time to their respective startups while they were at Harvard than school to the point that they both decided to both drop out of college. In fact, they're largely celebrated in society and *definitely* celebrated in the free market with their fortunes. Yet, these athletes (the vast majority of whom have come from *significantly* worse socioeconomic situations than probably most of us here on this forum, much less Gates and Zuckerberg) supposedly can't handle some endorsements? That seems extremely patronizing to me.
10-02-2019 12:12 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TerryD Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,961
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 548
I Root For: Notre Dame
Location: Mouth of Wilson, VA
Post: #35
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
(10-02-2019 11:21 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Another added wrinkle that will surely be revealed will be how these kids, and yes - they are still kids, will be managing their money. Going off of the data from Going for Broke, by the time they have been retired for two years, 78 percent of former NFL players have gone bankrupt or are under financial stress; within five years of retirement, an estimated 60 percent of former NBA players are broke.

Players often turn pro in football and men's basketball by their very early twenties, right out of college (if not before that). They generally have little-to-no business experience. Unlike people who inherit their wealth or make it in business, they don't necessarily have the connections to people who are used to handling a lot of money. When you hand a 22-year-old a few hundred thousand dollars, it's most likely going to be spent (whether by themselves, or family members or friends). It is not an age in which you typically find excellent long-range planning skills.

So, there already is massive amounts of data about the poor management and spending habits by young adults (often times leading to bankruptcy soon after in life) in the NFL and NBA; now we are going to be giving those same stakeholders similar amounts of money, but only earlier in their life?

Like I said - I recognize the current (and former) model did not work; but this will open Pandora's Box to a plethora of new problems that I do not think legislators are aware of or have really thought out. Once everyone goes down this path, there is no going back, and no one can accurately predict it will be better (or worse). Just seems like a substantial risk to take in order to transform the status quo.


The way I view your Pandora's Box is this:

--These kids having some money for a bit and blowing it (your worst case scenario) is better than never having any money at all.

I don't think that every kid will end up blowing their funds and going broke.

I suggest that the universities help with money management programs like the NFL currently does.

What kills me about the anti pay the players group (not you) is that its okay in their book that the colleges and everyone else associated with big time football and basketball see, earn and spend millions and millions of revenues every year....but they don't want the "workers" to make a dime over their scholarship and stipend.

We don't limit what non-athlete students on academic scholarships can earn....why do some insist on doing so for those on athletic scholarships??
(This post was last modified: 10-02-2019 12:16 PM by TerryD.)
10-02-2019 12:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GreenBison Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,049
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 51
I Root For: The Herd!!!
Location: B'ville
Post: #36
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
(10-02-2019 12:12 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(10-02-2019 11:53 AM)GreenBison Wrote:  
(10-02-2019 11:21 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Another added wrinkle that will surely be revealed will be how these kids, and yes - they are still kids, will be managing their money. Going off of the data from Going for Broke, by the time they have been retired for two years, 78 percent of former NFL players have gone bankrupt or are under financial stress; within five years of retirement, an estimated 60 percent of former NBA players are broke.

Players often turn pro in football and men's basketball by their very early twenties, right out of college (if not before that). They generally have little-to-no business experience. Unlike people who inherit their wealth or make it in business, they don't necessarily have the connections to people who are used to handling a lot of money. When you hand a 22-year-old a few hundred thousand dollars, it's most likely going to be spent (whether by themselves, or family members or friends). It is not an age in which you typically find excellent long-range planning skills.

So, there already is massive amounts of data about the poor management and spending habits by young adults (often times leading to bankruptcy soon after in life) in the NFL and NBA; now we are going to be giving those same stakeholders similar amounts of money, but only earlier in their life?

Like I said - I recognize the current (and former) model did not work; but this will open Pandora's Box to a plethora of new problems that I do not think legislators are aware of or have really thought out. Once everyone goes down this path, there is no going back, and no one can accurately predict it will be better (or worse). Just seems like a substantial risk to take in order to transform the status quo.

Excellent point. You know what else is going to be a problem? All of these kids are going to try to get in on this regardless of their athletic talent. They will be trying to monitize their YT Channels, Instagram Influencing, etc. Heck they won't have to be the most talented, they just need a great personality and be creative.

How much of a distraction is this going to be? Sorry coach I can't make it to the team meeting, I have a video shoot where I stand to make $2k from it. These kids will be doing this even if they only make an couple extra $100 a week. ALL of them are going to be distracted with trying to cash in on this.

Is this any more of a distraction than a normal student that has a minimum wage job that also has to balance classes and extracurricular activities? More of a distraction than parties, co-eds, alcohol and everything else that comes with being an athlete (or any other student) on campus? More of a distraction than, say, actual classes and homework?

Frankly, athletes have among the best time management skills out of any college students, which is a large reason why they're generally highly desired by employers after they graduate. They don't have time to dawdle in the way that, say, I did as a college student (where I felt that having to wake up for any class before 11 am was death).

No one seems to be bothered that Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg devoted waaaay more time to their respective startups while they were at Harvard than school to the point that they both decided to both drop out of college. In fact, they're largely celebrated in society and *definitely* celebrated in the free market with their fortunes. Yet, these athletes (the vast majority of whom have come from *significantly* worse socioeconomic situations than probably most of us here on this forum, much less Gates and Zuckerberg) supposedly can't handle some endorsements? That seems extremely patronizing to me.

Gates and ZUckerberg had more time on their hands. They only had to worry about going to class. They had zero commitments outside of their 18 hours of classes.

Also I didn't say they were incapable of doing any of this, I just stated that they are going to be more distracted. How is that patronizing to you?
(This post was last modified: 10-02-2019 12:35 PM by GreenBison.)
10-02-2019 12:22 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,670
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 83
I Root For: Ohio St, MAC
Location:
Post: #37
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
It needs to be explicit that these kids are neither employees of the school nor the third party. They are independent contractors (and will receive a federal 1099 reporting their earnings). The last thing schools need is to be told by a court they owe worker’s compensation or unemployment benefits.

The whole thing is going to be an administrative nightmare. The NCAA can’t have kids in different states playing under different compensation laws.
10-02-2019 12:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoldenWarrior11 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,836
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 234
I Root For: Marquette, BE
Location: Chicago
Post: #38
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
(10-02-2019 12:15 PM)TerryD Wrote:  
(10-02-2019 11:21 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Another added wrinkle that will surely be revealed will be how these kids, and yes - they are still kids, will be managing their money. Going off of the data from Going for Broke, by the time they have been retired for two years, 78 percent of former NFL players have gone bankrupt or are under financial stress; within five years of retirement, an estimated 60 percent of former NBA players are broke.

Players often turn pro in football and men's basketball by their very early twenties, right out of college (if not before that). They generally have little-to-no business experience. Unlike people who inherit their wealth or make it in business, they don't necessarily have the connections to people who are used to handling a lot of money. When you hand a 22-year-old a few hundred thousand dollars, it's most likely going to be spent (whether by themselves, or family members or friends). It is not an age in which you typically find excellent long-range planning skills.

So, there already is massive amounts of data about the poor management and spending habits by young adults (often times leading to bankruptcy soon after in life) in the NFL and NBA; now we are going to be giving those same stakeholders similar amounts of money, but only earlier in their life?

Like I said - I recognize the current (and former) model did not work; but this will open Pandora's Box to a plethora of new problems that I do not think legislators are aware of or have really thought out. Once everyone goes down this path, there is no going back, and no one can accurately predict it will be better (or worse). Just seems like a substantial risk to take in order to transform the status quo.


The way I view your Pandora's Box is this:

--These kids having some money for a bit and blowing it (your worst case scenario) is better than never having any money at all.

I don't think that every kid will end up blowing their funds and going broke.

I suggest that the universities help with money management programs like the NFL currently does.

What kills me about the anti pay the players group (not you) is that its okay in their book that the colleges and everyone else associated with big time football and basketball see, earn and spend millions and millions of revenues every year....but they don't want the "workers" to make a dime over their scholarship and stipend.

We don't limit what non-athlete students on academic scholarships can earn....why do some insist on doing so for those on athletic scholarships??

No, I hear you. Like I said, I don't think there is a universal solution to the current problem.

I would have rather seen some sort of system created where a general fund was created by the NCAA, where every student-athlete would receive a likeness fee or stipend upon graduating college. This would have somewhat preserved the amateur model, provided money to the student-athletes, been compliant with the Title IX issues, and encouraged more student-athletes to graduate. For the elite athletes that would have left early, they would still be paid for going pro anyways.

There are problems with this model as well, but at least it doesn't just cater to football and men's basketball only.
10-02-2019 12:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,151
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 566
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #39
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
(10-02-2019 12:29 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  It needs to be explicit that these kids are neither employees of the school nor the third party. They are independent contractors (and will receive a federal 1099 reporting their earnings). The last thing schools need is to be told by a court they owe worker’s compensation or unemployment benefits.

The whole thing is going to be an administrative nightmare. The NCAA can’t have kids in different states playing under different compensation laws.

Any smart business (whether it's a third party or the school) would want to characterize them as independent contractors.

However, the tricky thing there (and I know this very well through my job as a corporate attorney that deals with lots of employee/contractor situations) is that companies can't just magically label people as independent contractors and then hold them to the same obligations as employees. It's an "if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it's a duck" type of analysis. If you treat someone like an employee, then the law is going to look at that person as an employee regardless of whether you label them as an independent contractor. This is where schools are already walking a fine line with athletes - if athletes have to be at specific places (such as practice) at specific times with specific duties but then suffer adverse economic consequences (such as losing a scholarship) if they're not there, then they *look* like an employee under the law and the school may have to owe them employee-level compensation and benefits.

Similarly, an athlete that does a quick photo shoot or Instagram post for an endorsement could probably be a 1099. In contrast, an athlete that comes to a workplace at a specific time and place every week with a specific set of duties is going to have more scrutiny regarding the line between an employee and an independent contractor.
10-02-2019 12:42 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mpurdy22 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 642
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 12
I Root For: Miami (OH)
Location: Sandusky, Ohio
Post: #40
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
(10-02-2019 11:21 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Another added wrinkle that will surely be revealed will be how these kids, and yes - they are still kids, will be managing their money. Going off of the data from Going for Broke, by the time they have been retired for two years, 78 percent of former NFL players have gone bankrupt or are under financial stress; within five years of retirement, an estimated 60 percent of former NBA players are broke.

Players often turn pro in football and men's basketball by their very early twenties, right out of college (if not before that). They generally have little-to-no business experience. Unlike people who inherit their wealth or make it in business, they don't necessarily have the connections to people who are used to handling a lot of money. When you hand a 22-year-old a few hundred thousand dollars, it's most likely going to be spent (whether by themselves, or family members or friends). It is not an age in which you typically find excellent long-range planning skills.

So, there already is massive amounts of data about the poor management and spending habits by young adults (often times leading to bankruptcy soon after in life) in the NFL and NBA; now we are going to be giving those same stakeholders similar amounts of money, but only earlier in their life?

Like I said - I recognize the current (and former) model did not work; but this will open Pandora's Box to a plethora of new problems that I do not think legislators are aware of or have really thought out. Once everyone goes down this path, there is no going back, and no one can accurately predict it will be better (or worse). Just seems like a substantial risk to take in order to transform the status quo.

Very good take in my opinion. There is going to be a plethora of un-intended consequences once they go down this route.
10-02-2019 12:56 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.