Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
Author Message
mpurdy22 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 642
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 12
I Root For: Miami (OH)
Location: Sandusky, Ohio
Post: #61
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
(10-03-2019 12:55 AM)chester Wrote:  
(10-03-2019 12:25 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-02-2019 11:54 PM)chester Wrote:  
(10-02-2019 11:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-02-2019 08:53 AM)TripleA Wrote:  I think it's a huge difference. Under the legislation being drafted, schools aren't paying players, so it isn't forcing anyone to drop sports.

Third parties will be paying for commercials and such, but only to certain players, likely limited to stars in football and basketball.

So yeah, that's way different than pay to play.

No kid right out of high school has any endorsement value to corporate America. These "endorsement" deals will be nothing more than veiled pay for play---its just a third party picking up the tab. I also think people are being a little naive that the same boosters who WILL be paying this pay for play tab will continue to send the same donation dollars to the school that they do today. So, there will probably be at least some indirect cost to the school in the form of reduced donation revenue.

Disagree with that

[Image: MqsA0kW.jpeg]

lol...Ok---so maybe I oversold the point. Still, if the olympic model was in effect, Zion and a few other guys MIGHT have some economically legitimate endorsement value. However, if the olympic model was in effect---do you really believe that ONLY Zion and a couple of other guys would get "endorsement" deals? I think we both know there would be a ton of guys getting them---most of whom had zero legitimate economic endorsement value.

Honestly, I wouldn't be too concerned about it. In the OP, Fighting Muskie asked:

"Won’t this just set off a giant arms race in which the schools with the richest alums and donors annually buy their alma maters the finest recruits money can buy?"

and

"What’s to keep corporate sponsors from raiding rosters to stock their favorite programs?"

Well, in California's case, there's an existing law that prohibits anyone from paying an athlete or a member of an athlete's family any thing of value in exchange for that athlete's agreement to attend any one particular school. That law was repeatedly referenced in analyses of the California bill.

I don't know, but I imagine that other states have similar laws on the books. I personally disagree with it; I think that if some dumb*** booster wants to pay a recruit a trillion bucks then, hey, that exchange should be allowed. Realistically, though, I'd imagine that the end result of all this will be something that at least affords the NCAA some protection against the financial inducement of recruits and transfers. Does that mean it still won't happen to some degree? No, no it doesn't. But current laws and NCAA rules also don't entirely prevent it. So what's the diff?

To me, the bottom line is that college athletes ought to be able to make money in any legal way they wish without losing eligibility. Surely most all can agree that the same should be allowed for athletes already enrolled?

Felicity Huffman and Lori Laughlin agree with you
10-03-2019 07:04 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: #62
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
Feds are now planning to write legislation on this.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...e-athletes
10-03-2019 09:09 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: #63
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
(10-03-2019 12:25 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-02-2019 11:54 PM)chester Wrote:  
(10-02-2019 11:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-02-2019 08:53 AM)TripleA Wrote:  
(10-02-2019 08:23 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  A distinction without a difference.

I think it's a huge difference. Under the legislation being drafted, schools aren't paying players, so it isn't forcing anyone to drop sports.

Third parties will be paying for commercials and such, but only to certain players, likely limited to stars in football and basketball.

So yeah, that's way different than pay to play.

No kid right out of high school has any endorsement value to corporate America. These "endorsement" deals will be nothing more than veiled pay for play---its just a third party picking up the tab. I also think people are being a little naive that the same boosters who WILL be paying this pay for play tab will continue to send the same donation dollars to the school that they do today. So, there will probably be at least some indirect cost to the school in the form of reduced donation revenue.

Disagree with that

[Image: MqsA0kW.jpeg]

lol...Ok---so maybe I oversold the point. Still, if the olympic model was in effect, Zion and a few other guys MIGHT have some economically legitimate endorsement value. However, if the olympic model was in effect---do you really believe that ONLY Zion and a couple of other guys would get "endorsement" deals? I think we both know there would be a ton of guys getting them---most of whom had zero legitimate economic endorsement value.

If you’re talking about endorsements in the sense of TV commercials with big corporate brands, that’s a limited universe, although plenty of people in high school have signed endorsement deals. Chloe Kim started signing endorsements at age 13. Simone Biles was signing endorsement deals prior to going to the Olympics when she was still in high school. LeBron James signed a deluge of endorsement deals within weeks of graduating from high school - it’s hard to say with a straight face that his endorsement value would have been magically zero if he was subject to today’s one-and-done system.

Heck, just look at other professions. The person with the number 1 song at the end of the summer and was the musical guest on last week’s season premiere of Saturday Night Live is Billie Eilish, who’s 17 years old. If she decided to go to college, would any university in the country declare her ineligible to be a music major because she’s already making millions of dollars playing music? That’s patently ridiculous, yet that’s the standard being applied to athletes... which is why I think that the arguments against player compensation are all patently ridiculous.

Besides, a lot of people here are looking at endorsements in a limited sense. An Instragram influencer can make $1000 to $2000 per 100,000 followers for a sponsored post, which is something that’s actually within range for a good athlete in a high profile sport. There’s no more direct form of “name and likeness” than an autographed picture. Once again, most athletes won’t justify tens of thousands of dollars for autographs, but $1000 for an appearance fee at a sports camp or small business is pretty realistic and reasonable for a Power 5 football or basketball player (and not the apocalyptic rain of illicit money that people are worried about). Athletes (or any other college student) don’t need tens of thousands of dollars to be happy - $1000 goes a long way on most college campuses. I recall that the money that Chris Webber took in what ultimately vacated all of the wins of the Fab Five Michigan teams was essentially pocket change for food and clothes. And if an athlete is popular enough to make much more than that, then more power to him or her.

Besides, just Google “Jalen Hurts autograph” and you’ll pull down dozens of sites selling autographed pictures of him. Why are a bunch of random Amazon and eBay sellers able to capitalize on the name and likeness of Jalen Hurts, while he’d be ruled ineligible if he took a single cent? There’s absolutely nothing logical about that at all. Every single argument against this is about fan-based interests like competitive balance or the emotional connection that people have cheering for “amateurs” as opposed to “semi-pros”. Absolutely nothing is about what’s actually best for the student-athletes themselves, which ought to be an indicator of which side will prevail here.
(This post was last modified: 10-03-2019 09:12 AM by Frank the Tank.)
10-03-2019 09:09 AM
Visit this user's website 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: #64
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
(10-03-2019 09:09 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(10-03-2019 12:25 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-02-2019 11:54 PM)chester Wrote:  
(10-02-2019 11:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-02-2019 08:53 AM)TripleA Wrote:  I think it's a huge difference. Under the legislation being drafted, schools aren't paying players, so it isn't forcing anyone to drop sports.

Third parties will be paying for commercials and such, but only to certain players, likely limited to stars in football and basketball.

So yeah, that's way different than pay to play.

No kid right out of high school has any endorsement value to corporate America. These "endorsement" deals will be nothing more than veiled pay for play---its just a third party picking up the tab. I also think people are being a little naive that the same boosters who WILL be paying this pay for play tab will continue to send the same donation dollars to the school that they do today. So, there will probably be at least some indirect cost to the school in the form of reduced donation revenue.

Disagree with that

[Image: MqsA0kW.jpeg]

lol...Ok---so maybe I oversold the point. Still, if the olympic model was in effect, Zion and a few other guys MIGHT have some economically legitimate endorsement value. However, if the olympic model was in effect---do you really believe that ONLY Zion and a couple of other guys would get "endorsement" deals? I think we both know there would be a ton of guys getting them---most of whom had zero legitimate economic endorsement value.

If you’re talking about endorsements in the sense of TV commercials with big corporate brands, that’s a limited universe, although plenty of people in high school have signed endorsement deals. Chloe Kim started signing endorsements at age 13. Simone Biles was signing endorsement deals prior to going to the Olympics when she was still in high school. LeBron James signed a deluge of endorsement deals within weeks of graduating from high school - it’s hard to say with a straight face that his endorsement value would have been magically zero if he was subject to today’s one-and-done system.

Heck, just look at other professions. The person with the number 1 song at the end of the summer and was the musical guest on last week’s season premiere of Saturday Night Live is Billie Eilish, who’s 17 years old. If she decided to go to college, would any university in the country declare her ineligible to be a music major because she’s already making millions of dollars playing music? That’s patently ridiculous, yet that’s the standard being applied to athletes... which is why I think that the arguments against player compensation are all patently ridiculous.

Besides, a lot of people here are looking at endorsements in a limited sense. An Instragram influencer can make $1000 to $2000 per 100,000 followers for a sponsored post, which is something that’s actually within range for a good athlete in a high profile sport. There’s no more direct form of “name and likeness” than an autographed picture. Once again, most athletes won’t justify tens of thousands of dollars for autographs, but $1000 for an appearance fee at a sports camp or small business is pretty realistic and reasonable for a Power 5 football or basketball player (and not the apocalyptic rain of illicit money that people are worried about). Athletes (or any other college student) don’t need tens of thousands of dollars to be happy - $1000 goes a long way on most college campuses. I recall that the money that Chris Webber took in what ultimately vacated all of the wins of the Fab Five Michigan teams was essentially pocket change for food and clothes. And if an athlete is popular enough to make much more than that, then more power to him or her.

Besides, just Google “Jalen Hurts autograph” and you’ll pull down dozens of sites selling autographed pictures of him. Why are a bunch of random Amazon and eBay sellers able to capitalize on the name and likeness of Jalen Hurts, while he’d be ruled ineligible if he took a single cent? There’s absolutely nothing logical about that at all. Every single argument against this is about fan-based interests like competitive balance or the emotional connection that people have cheering for “amateurs” as opposed to “semi-pros”. Absolutely nothing is about what’s actually best for the student-athletes themselves, which ought to be an indicator of which side will prevail here.

What you are describing is not unreasonable at all. I also don’t think it bears any resemblance to what the landscape will look like when we have fanatically loyal well heeled boosters involved in an era where it’s legal for college athletes and recruits to receive endorsement money. What we are creating is the ability to buy players. Unlimited money can pour into the system under the guise of endorsement or appearance money. I think your kidding yourself if you think traditional endorsement economics is going to be driving the college recruiting and college player endorsement numbers.

Furthermore, even the NFL understands that pure pay for play creates an uninteresting uncompetitive league. That’s why every single pro league has a salary cap or a mandatory draft system to distribute players equitably to teams (or both). These mechanisms act as a counterbalance to the pure influence of money on competitive balance. Where is the counterbalance to offset an attempt to buy a championship in the system being proposed?

I don’t see how you can have a draft for colleges that forces a kid to go to a school he likely wouldnt choose on his own and doesn't want to attend. That goes completely against the whole purpose of these institutions of higher learning. The point of the institutions is to get an education--not play football. The other option is a salary cap---and you can’t have a cap without collective bargaining or having the schools be the source of the payment.

I just don’t see how this ends well for the sport.
(This post was last modified: 10-03-2019 10:43 AM by Attackcoog.)
10-03-2019 10:04 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: #65
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
(10-03-2019 10:04 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  That’s why every single pro league has a salary cap or a mandatory draft system to distribute players equitably to teams (or both). These mechanisms act as a counterbalance to the pure influence of money on competitive balance. Where is the counterbalance to offset an attempt to buy a championship in the system being proposed?

I don't think European soccer leagues have such mechanisms and they are extremely popular.

And when has the lack of player pay in the NCAA ever contributed to competitive balance? There is no competitive balance, and that's partly because the NCAA isn't a "league" in the sense the NFL is.
(This post was last modified: 10-03-2019 10:45 AM by quo vadis.)
10-03-2019 10:44 AM
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: #66
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
(10-03-2019 10:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-03-2019 10:04 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  That’s why every single pro league has a salary cap or a mandatory draft system to distribute players equitably to teams (or both). These mechanisms act as a counterbalance to the pure influence of money on competitive balance. Where is the counterbalance to offset an attempt to buy a championship in the system being proposed?

I don't think European soccer leagues have such mechanisms and they are extremely popular.

And when has the lack of player pay in the NCAA ever contributed to competitive balance? There is no competitive balance, and that's partly because the NCAA isn't a "league" in the sense the NFL is.

Correct. Its also not very balanced. Only 6 different teams have won the title since 1992. I'd add they also use a relegation system which at least attempts to keep the bottom of the league from getting ridiculously weak.
(This post was last modified: 10-03-2019 10:52 AM by Attackcoog.)
10-03-2019 10:48 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: #67
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
IMO there are two major groups who hate this idea (for now).

The Schools: They are afraid of the money - this will morph into their bill and they will have to pay everyone from the equestrian team to the football team; and they will lose school endorsement deals and the money will go straight to the kids and take them out of the equation... not to mention the NCAA chits for the major tournament appearances.


The Fans (the ones who don't like it obviously): There are really two subgroups of haters here.

- The first are the ones who think these kids are already lucky and privileged enough to get free school. To me that is just jealousy. 95% of the "school bill" doesn't even pay for education costs anymore, it is all fees and administration BS.
- The second are the sky screamers who firmly believe that corruption will take over and the T. Boon Pickens of the world (god rest his soul) will just buy everything in sight for their school

Right now, the money paid out is hidden and there is a lot of it nobody knows about (or willfully ignores - see Rick Pitino)... Put it on the table for all to see, that actually will level the playing field not distort it. Yes some school will have more aggressive buyers than others, but that is life and that is already in play behind the scenes - expose it.

The NCAA f'kd this up royally years ago when they selectively enforced rules.... I think Calapari once said while at Umass.... [to paraphrase] Kentucky got caught, University of New Orleans is in a lot of trouble for this! If they had done their job and truly practiced what they preached about this stuff instead of thinking about the affects of punishing UNC or Kentucky (for example) on the cash register.... a lot of this inequity babble would never have existed.
10-03-2019 10:55 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: #68
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
(10-03-2019 10:48 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-03-2019 10:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-03-2019 10:04 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  That’s why every single pro league has a salary cap or a mandatory draft system to distribute players equitably to teams (or both). These mechanisms act as a counterbalance to the pure influence of money on competitive balance. Where is the counterbalance to offset an attempt to buy a championship in the system being proposed?

I don't think European soccer leagues have such mechanisms and they are extremely popular.

And when has the lack of player pay in the NCAA ever contributed to competitive balance? There is no competitive balance, and that's partly because the NCAA isn't a "league" in the sense the NFL is.

Correct. Its also not very balanced. Only 6 different teams have won the title since 1992. I'd add they also use a relegation system which at least attempts to keep the bottom of the league from getting ridiculously weak.

Yes, but that means 'balance' isn't key to anything really, certainly not money and popularity. In the NFL and NBA we see big imbalances too. The Celtics and Lakers have won like half of all NBA titles. When baseball was the undisputed national pastime, from the 1920s - 1950s, the Yankees won all the time.

And heck, college football doesn't have and never has had much balance either. The same handful of 10-15 schools win all the national titles.

Seems to me that "balance" is just an NCAA propaganda excuse for the schools to keep control of all the money - professional for us, amateur for the players.

Heck, you could achieve 'balance' by restricting the non-player side of things - very low salary caps for coaches, for staff, size limits on stadiums, ticket prices, TV deals, etc. - but the NCAA doesn't want to limit their own money.
10-03-2019 11:04 AM
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: #69
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
(10-03-2019 11:04 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-03-2019 10:48 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-03-2019 10:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-03-2019 10:04 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  That’s why every single pro league has a salary cap or a mandatory draft system to distribute players equitably to teams (or both). These mechanisms act as a counterbalance to the pure influence of money on competitive balance. Where is the counterbalance to offset an attempt to buy a championship in the system being proposed?

I don't think European soccer leagues have such mechanisms and they are extremely popular.

And when has the lack of player pay in the NCAA ever contributed to competitive balance? There is no competitive balance, and that's partly because the NCAA isn't a "league" in the sense the NFL is.

Correct. Its also not very balanced. Only 6 different teams have won the title since 1992. I'd add they also use a relegation system which at least attempts to keep the bottom of the league from getting ridiculously weak.

Yes, but that means 'balance' isn't key to anything really, certainly not money and popularity. In the NFL and NBA we see big imbalances too. The Celtics and Lakers have won like half of all NBA titles. When baseball was the undisputed national pastime, from the 1920s - 1950s, the Yankees won all the time.

And heck, college football doesn't have and never has had much balance either. The same handful of 10-15 schools win all the national titles.

Seems to me that "balance" is just an NCAA propaganda excuse for the schools to keep control of all the money - professional for us, amateur for the players.

Heck, you could achieve 'balance' by restricting the non-player side of things - very low salary caps for coaches, for staff, size limits on stadiums, ticket prices, TV deals, etc. - but the NCAA doesn't want to limit their own money.

Frankly, Id argue the Premier League is popular simply because soccer is the most popular sport in Europe and the Premier League, which pays the highest salaries, is where the best soccer players in the world compete. College football wouldnt have the best players---the NFL has the best players. So, I dont know that the Premier League success using their model would necessarily translate to American college football. Given that all American pro leagues seem to avoid that model leads me to believe it probably would not translate well to college football.
10-03-2019 12:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CardinalJim Offline
Welcome to The New Age
*

Posts: 8,169
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 731
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Planet Red
Post: #70
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
The California law is scheduled to go into effect until 2023. It’s more of a “Hey NCAA, do something before we get involved in a few years.” The same type bill is going through the Kentucky House. I’m sure other states are addressing it as well.

As for what eventually happens at the conference level, no P5 program is going to walk away from the kind of payouts we have seen the last few years over paying their athletes or allowing their athletes to make a few bucks.
I don’t care what these pious blowhards have said in the past. Faced with leaving The SEC, The ACC, Big 12, Big Ten or PAC for less money and less prestige in a G5 conference, they’ll cough up the cash.

When it’s all said and done, I doubt we’ll see any real change in the future.
10-03-2019 01:52 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: #71
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
These bills will open up for more bills. Other athletes will scream to get paid or get the same as P5 students get. Athletes at G5, FCS, non-football schools at D1, D2, D3, NAIA, etc will scream and want the same thing.

There are people out there advocating for athletes at non-revenue sports to get paid as well. That is why the NCAA will win in courts because this would open up chaos that these lawmakers would not know how much money each sports make. Many sports including women's sports lose money and many of the bills are targeting all athletes in all sports all the way down to NAIA level. The New York bill with some states have all athletes get paid from 15% of what the schools earn from the sport include media deals and all that. This includes schools like Syracuse to Buffalo all the way down to the SUNY schools that are in D3 and NAIA. This could lead to many private schools either to drop all sports or close down. Notre Dame and Big 10 schools can not escape to D3 because the bills target D3 players have to be paid as well. Somebody at Reddit noticed the California bill added a clause to include all D1, D2, D3, NAIA and all that so that the PAC 12 schools or other D1s from dropping down to other levels to escape this law.
10-03-2019 02:16 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: #72
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
(10-03-2019 12:05 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-03-2019 11:04 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-03-2019 10:48 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-03-2019 10:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-03-2019 10:04 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  That’s why every single pro league has a salary cap or a mandatory draft system to distribute players equitably to teams (or both). These mechanisms act as a counterbalance to the pure influence of money on competitive balance. Where is the counterbalance to offset an attempt to buy a championship in the system being proposed?

I don't think European soccer leagues have such mechanisms and they are extremely popular.

And when has the lack of player pay in the NCAA ever contributed to competitive balance? There is no competitive balance, and that's partly because the NCAA isn't a "league" in the sense the NFL is.

Correct. Its also not very balanced. Only 6 different teams have won the title since 1992. I'd add they also use a relegation system which at least attempts to keep the bottom of the league from getting ridiculously weak.

Yes, but that means 'balance' isn't key to anything really, certainly not money and popularity. In the NFL and NBA we see big imbalances too. The Celtics and Lakers have won like half of all NBA titles. When baseball was the undisputed national pastime, from the 1920s - 1950s, the Yankees won all the time.

And heck, college football doesn't have and never has had much balance either. The same handful of 10-15 schools win all the national titles.

Seems to me that "balance" is just an NCAA propaganda excuse for the schools to keep control of all the money - professional for us, amateur for the players.

Heck, you could achieve 'balance' by restricting the non-player side of things - very low salary caps for coaches, for staff, size limits on stadiums, ticket prices, TV deals, etc. - but the NCAA doesn't want to limit their own money.

Frankly, Id argue the Premier League is popular simply because soccer is the most popular sport in Europe and the Premier League, which pays the highest salaries, is where the best soccer players in the world compete. College football wouldnt have the best players---the NFL has the best players. So, I dont know that the Premier League success using their model would necessarily translate to American college football. Given that all American pro leagues seem to avoid that model leads me to believe it probably would not translate well to college football.

FWIW, it's not just the Premier League. The top German, Spanish and Italian leagues, which are equivalent in quality to the PL, are all run basically the same way. It's the way top club soccer is organized.

To me, it's very self-serving for the NCAA - meaning the member schools and conferences - to have everything very professional for themselves, with top coaches, staff, and administrators making 6 and 7 figure salaries, even at schools where the athletics loses gobs of money **, but insist on amateur status for the players. Indefensible.

** That's really the worst of it. I mean, yes, at Alabama the coach makes $7m, but at least he runs a program that makes a profit. At my USF, we pay our football coach $2.5m, and his program loses money such that we have to sock students with a $500 annual fee to pay for it.
(This post was last modified: 10-03-2019 03:39 PM by quo vadis.)
10-03-2019 03:37 PM
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: #73
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
(10-03-2019 01:52 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  The California law is scheduled to go into effect until 2023. It’s more of a “Hey NCAA, do something before we get involved in a few years.” The same type bill is going through the Kentucky House. I’m sure other states are addressing it as well.

As for what eventually happens at the conference level, no P5 program is going to walk away from the kind of payouts we have seen the last few years over paying their athletes or allowing their athletes to make a few bucks.
I don’t care what these pious blowhards have said in the past. Faced with leaving The SEC, The ACC, Big 12, Big Ten or PAC for less money and less prestige in a G5 conference, they’ll cough up the cash.

When it’s all said and done, I doubt we’ll see any real change in the future.

Here is the current list, I think, PLUS the US CONGRESS.

Colorado
Florida
Illinois
Kentucky
Maryland
Minnesota
North Carolina
Nevada
New Mexico
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Washington
West Virginia
10-03-2019 03:54 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: #74
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
(10-03-2019 01:52 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  The California law is scheduled to go into effect until 2023. It’s more of a “Hey NCAA, do something before we get involved in a few years.” The same type bill is going through the Kentucky House. I’m sure other states are addressing it as well.

As for what eventually happens at the conference level, no P5 program is going to walk away from the kind of payouts we have seen the last few years over paying their athletes or allowing their athletes to make a few bucks.
I don’t care what these pious blowhards have said in the past. Faced with leaving The SEC, The ACC, Big 12, Big Ten or PAC for less money and less prestige in a G5 conference, they’ll cough up the cash.

When it’s all said and done, I doubt we’ll see any real change in the future.

Agreed on all fronts. To be sure, there's a lot of individual change in the sense that athletes can now legally receive third party compensation. However, I agree that the *structure* of how conferences are aligned isn't going anywhere. Anyone from a Power 5 conference that claims that they're considering Division III is lying. (Plus, Division III is going to allow for third party compensation, too, so there is ZERO reason to downgrade whatsoever.) Illinois just built a magnificent new pro-level football facility and we're renovating our basketball facility in a similar fashion... and we're Illinois! We're freaking terrible in our revenue sports! (Granted, our basketball program is going to be finally back this season. I have less optimism on the football side of the ledger.) I can tell you that we're not walking away from the Big Ten and the top level of college sports regardless of how players get compensated (and neither will Northwestern, Michigan, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Miami, USC, Alabama, etc.). The NCAA and its member conferences and schools will all whine and be dragged into this kicking and screaming with requisite legal challenges, but we're eventually all going to adjust and simply move on. By 2025, we're probably going to be amazed by how *little* will have changed with third party player compensation.
(This post was last modified: 10-03-2019 04:10 PM by Frank the Tank.)
10-03-2019 04:08 PM
Visit this user's website 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: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
NCAA sports are doomed, they say. Yeah, we’ve heard that before
By NATHAN FENNO STAFF WRITER
OCT. 2, 2019 5:04 PM

https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/201...y-title-ix
10-03-2019 05:11 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: #76
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
(10-03-2019 03:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-03-2019 12:05 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-03-2019 11:04 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-03-2019 10:48 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-03-2019 10:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I don't think European soccer leagues have such mechanisms and they are extremely popular.

And when has the lack of player pay in the NCAA ever contributed to competitive balance? There is no competitive balance, and that's partly because the NCAA isn't a "league" in the sense the NFL is.

Correct. Its also not very balanced. Only 6 different teams have won the title since 1992. I'd add they also use a relegation system which at least attempts to keep the bottom of the league from getting ridiculously weak.

Yes, but that means 'balance' isn't key to anything really, certainly not money and popularity. In the NFL and NBA we see big imbalances too. The Celtics and Lakers have won like half of all NBA titles. When baseball was the undisputed national pastime, from the 1920s - 1950s, the Yankees won all the time.

And heck, college football doesn't have and never has had much balance either. The same handful of 10-15 schools win all the national titles.

Seems to me that "balance" is just an NCAA propaganda excuse for the schools to keep control of all the money - professional for us, amateur for the players.

Heck, you could achieve 'balance' by restricting the non-player side of things - very low salary caps for coaches, for staff, size limits on stadiums, ticket prices, TV deals, etc. - but the NCAA doesn't want to limit their own money.

Frankly, Id argue the Premier League is popular simply because soccer is the most popular sport in Europe and the Premier League, which pays the highest salaries, is where the best soccer players in the world compete. College football wouldnt have the best players---the NFL has the best players. So, I dont know that the Premier League success using their model would necessarily translate to American college football. Given that all American pro leagues seem to avoid that model leads me to believe it probably would not translate well to college football.

FWIW, it's not just the Premier League. The top German, Spanish and Italian leagues, which are equivalent in quality to the PL, are all run basically the same way. It's the way top club soccer is organized.

To me, it's very self-serving for the NCAA - meaning the member schools and conferences - to have everything very professional for themselves, with top coaches, staff, and administrators making 6 and 7 figure salaries, even at schools where the athletics loses gobs of money **, but insist on amateur status for the players. Indefensible.

** That's really the worst of it. I mean, yes, at Alabama the coach makes $7m, but at least he runs a program that makes a profit. At my USF, we pay our football coach $2.5m, and his program loses money such that we have to sock students with a $500 annual fee to pay for it.

Its worth noting that the original intent was that NOBODY connected with college sports were to be compensated.
(This post was last modified: 10-03-2019 06:08 PM by Attackcoog.)
10-03-2019 06:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jedclampett Online
2nd String
*

Posts: 489
Joined: Jul 2019
Reputation: 15
I Root For: Temple
Location:
Post: #77
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
(10-03-2019 05:11 PM)TripleA Wrote:  NCAA sports are doomed, they say. Yeah, we’ve heard that before
By NATHAN FENNO STAFF WRITER
OCT. 2, 2019 5:04 PM

https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/201...y-title-ix

It is a perpetual train wreck, and nobody cares.
10-03-2019 09:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jedclampett Online
2nd String
*

Posts: 489
Joined: Jul 2019
Reputation: 15
I Root For: Temple
Location:
Post: #78
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
(10-01-2019 07:41 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Won’t this just set off a giant arms race in which the schools with the richest alums and donors annually buy their alma maters the finest recruits money can buy?

What’s to keep corporate sponsors from raiding rosters to stock their favorite programs?

There’s sure to be strife if it becomes public that Nike or Adidas is providing more salary...oops, I meant endorsements to one of their client schools over another?

Or what’s to say that a school like Alabama demands $5 million in endorsements for recruits in exchange for an outfitter deal?

All good points.

You know, the problems & complexities are so troubling that it almost seems that we should legalize making money any old way from athletics the same way some countries legalize prostitution.

Throw out the rule books, anything goes...

Notions of fairness and of doing things "the right way" are becoming increasingly quaint to many people.

I'm not really serious in saying just screw it and turn it over to the mobs and just say "anything goes," "let the strong survive," "it's all a Darwinian thing, you know??

The tricky part is telling young men that they can't earn money from being basketball stars, when people their age can earn money from being rock stars or rap artists.

The whole system is changing. The guys aren't just "kids" any more. They're young adults and they're exerting their rights. The P5 schools have the dough to pay them, and the dudes are earning a living.

============================================

It's not amateur sports any more. They are all professionals. Once they're pros, no one can really limit their entrepreneurism. It's probably unconstitutional to try.

============================================

There's no putting the toothpaste back in this tube. We've just got to deal with the new reality and iike it or lump it.

Only other thing I can think of is to ditch "varsity" sports altogether, or have the professionalism be part of their educational curriculum, the same way a person can pursue a MBA while earning over $100 K per year.

Like - "yeah," we're students, but we're pros at the same time, and our studies are about how to become better pros.

============================================

Maybe it's really not so bad. You know, a lot of college "kids" get ripped off by not being able to earn more than a pittance while going to school.

A lot of teens are learning to make serious money by being various kinds of entrepreneurs.

Over half of college students have outrageous & impossible debts, loans, etc. If we're not going to help them afford a college education, then college probably needs to adapt to the demands of the marketplace, rather than forcing the "kids" to adapt to the demands of the university.

============================================

It ain't pretty. It probably ain't good.

But this is capitalism, pure and simple, it's sink or swim, dog eat dog.

Maybe we'll never return to the idyllic form of college education that many of us were fortunate to appreciate and treasure.

Maybe it is now, actually, a mean, nasty, dark, dank, brave new world.

But what can anybody do about it at this point.

In a way, the Trumps, Putins, Giulianis, have won. The bastards have won, and we're stuck with it.

============================================

But, cheer up: The pendulum will swing back the other way again at some point when people get completely fed up with this uber-materialistic BS.
10-03-2019 09:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jdgaucho Online
All American
*

Posts: 3,043
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 41
I Root For: UCSB
Location: Big West Land
Post: #79
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
I'm wondering if schools like mine (UC Santa Barbara) could benefit from this. Our location is highly desirable and no worries about football...07-coffee3
10-03-2019 11:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ColumbusCard Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 60
Joined: Oct 2018
Reputation: 6
I Root For: U of L
Location:
Post: #80
RE: Am I the only one who thinks pay for play will be a train wreck?
(10-02-2019 10:41 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  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
The women's soccer team was complaining about national team pay, not domestic league pay. And their case is quite a strong one considering they usually generate equal if not more revenue than the men's team.
10-03-2019 11:08 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.