Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
'A nightmare for college athletics'
Author Message
TripleA Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 48,283
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 1621
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location:

Memphis Hall of Fame
Post: #21
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
I agree with Frank. The most likely result is a fed law allowing NIL. Period. End of story.
02-10-2020 12:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chester Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 212
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 26
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #22
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-09-2020 09:19 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/09...caa-112285

All 50 states soon could have separate rules about college superstars signing sneaker contracts or monetizing Instagram followers like the pros. Players might lend their faces to car dealership promotions, earn cash coaching sports camps or hire agents and lawyers to negotiate on their behalf.

Those pushing Congress to move say such a mishmash of state laws would create an uneven landscape for recruiting athletes. A school in one state could offer a hot prospect better options than a cross-border rival. The result might be monumental opportunities for young athletes, or as some NCAA officials argue, an existential crisis for college sports.

Here's a link to the hearing mentioned in that article:

https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2020/2/n...mpensation

EDIT: Starts at the 34 min mark of the imbedded video.
(This post was last modified: 02-11-2020 12:44 PM by chester.)
02-11-2020 09:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 38,364
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1270
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #23
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-10-2020 10:59 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-10-2020 10:01 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(02-10-2020 09:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-09-2020 08:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-09-2020 07:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  I don't think there is much sympathy for the NCAA. A lot of people (probably a large majority) think college athletes are exploited. So I just don't think they would get votes for an exemption.

Its not about sympathy. The NCAA is seen as wrong in the pay for play dispute---but by and large---the NCAA has a pretty positive image among the public. Its college football---smiling athletes---March Madness---traditional football games on Saturdays--athletic sportsmanship---scholarships for hard working athletes and achievers. Nobody is endearing themselves to voters by damaging that or making it go away.

The idea is to figure out how to make it work better for all involved. An anittrust exemption makes the NCAA function exactly how they want it. They want it to provide free athletic scholarship opportunities for women. They want the athletes to share in the revenue. They want the current competitive balance to be relatively unchanged. They want to keep the expense side of the equation under control for public institutions. They want the kids to get an education.

An anti-trust exemption is probably the only way for it to survive in a form that's anything even remotely similar to what currently exists. There is no real desire among the public to destroy the NCAA and the educational opportunities and traditional events it offers. The public just wants the NCAA to be more fair to its student athletes...lol...oh, and they dont want have their public institutions getting in bidding wars for players and coaches. I dont know how you do that without an antitrust exemption. Hard to say its not in the public interest when you consider tax dollars are either directly or indirectly footing much of the bill.

I think federal involvement is likely, but unlikely to take the form of an anti-trust exemption in some blanket sense. As I indicated, such an exemption could empower the NCAA to regain control of football media rights, something the Power conferences would never allow.

More likely, a law will be passed to create uniformity in pay-for-play across the states, maybe just for name and likeness, maybe for paying players directly as well. But that's all it will address. This law, merely by having been passed at a later date, would naturally supersede any anti-trust provisions that would conflict with it, but otherwise leave the NCAA subject to anti-trust in other areas.

Again, there's no reason to think Title IX will factor in to this, as neither congress nor the courts would ever allow any school to use the "need" to bid for players as an excuse to shirk their T9 responsibilities, any more than they allow the "need" to bid on coaches to do the same now.

The likely effect of all this will be to just make things harder on the "middle guys", not the little guys, because FCS and below aren't going to get involved in bidding for players anyway. The "middle guys", the G5 types that are already running big structural deficits funded by student fees and institutional transfers will be squeezed even more as they strive to ante-up to chase the quixotic dream. Because part of their package-of-persuasion to lure that 3* quarterback will now have to involved some more money on top of the scholarship.

I believe that's all correct. It's an excellent point that the Power 5 actually benefit from the NCAA *not* having an antitrust exemption. I also think that there's pretty much no political willpower to give the NCAA any type of antitrust exemption: conservatives and liberals both love using the NCAA as a punching bag equally. True pay for play directly from the schools could cause Title IX issues, but that's not going to be the case for third party compensation for likenesses (which is largely what we're dealing with in the new state laws that are being passed).

It's really not that complicated: the most likely outcome is that there's a national law that allows for athletes to be compensated for their likenesses similar to the California law that was passed. No more and no less. There seems to be this hope from some fans that the federal government will somehow use this issue to intervene further into other areas of college sports and I don't think that will be the case at all. I can't emphasize this enough: the NCAA is a true bipartisan unifying issue... in that both parties can't stand the NCAA. There's little evidence that Congress is going to help them out one bit on even a single issue, much less granting them an antitrust exemption.

Except that the Olympic model won’t work for college sports, doesn’t stop the runaway coaches salaries some politicians have attacked, and probably won’t funnel a dime to 90% of student athletes (thus doesn’t really solve the problem the public would like solved). An antitrust exemption with salary caps and revenue sharing is the only thing thats going to actually solve the problem. It’s the only thing that allows the athletes to share in the revenues, protect title 9 opportunities, while providing some sort of effective cost controls (which is clearly in the public interests—certainly for the public funded institutions). It also does this while avoiding damaging the end product (college football and basketball) which the general public is quite fond of. Most any other solution likely destroys the game as Americans have come to know it. It’s also worth noting that any “solution” that would likley result in a reduction in the number of scholarship opportunities is likely a non-starter.

I don't think you can put the genie back in the bottle on coaches salaries. Plus, boosters can find away around salary caps for coaches pretty easily. They already pay the salary at some schools.

With salary cap for players you still have the incentive to cheat, just like now.
02-11-2020 09:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 33,344
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 853
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #24
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-10-2020 10:59 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-10-2020 10:01 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(02-10-2020 09:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-09-2020 08:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-09-2020 07:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  I don't think there is much sympathy for the NCAA. A lot of people (probably a large majority) think college athletes are exploited. So I just don't think they would get votes for an exemption.

Its not about sympathy. The NCAA is seen as wrong in the pay for play dispute---but by and large---the NCAA has a pretty positive image among the public. Its college football---smiling athletes---March Madness---traditional football games on Saturdays--athletic sportsmanship---scholarships for hard working athletes and achievers. Nobody is endearing themselves to voters by damaging that or making it go away.

The idea is to figure out how to make it work better for all involved. An anittrust exemption makes the NCAA function exactly how they want it. They want it to provide free athletic scholarship opportunities for women. They want the athletes to share in the revenue. They want the current competitive balance to be relatively unchanged. They want to keep the expense side of the equation under control for public institutions. They want the kids to get an education.

An anti-trust exemption is probably the only way for it to survive in a form that's anything even remotely similar to what currently exists. There is no real desire among the public to destroy the NCAA and the educational opportunities and traditional events it offers. The public just wants the NCAA to be more fair to its student athletes...lol...oh, and they dont want have their public institutions getting in bidding wars for players and coaches. I dont know how you do that without an antitrust exemption. Hard to say its not in the public interest when you consider tax dollars are either directly or indirectly footing much of the bill.

I think federal involvement is likely, but unlikely to take the form of an anti-trust exemption in some blanket sense. As I indicated, such an exemption could empower the NCAA to regain control of football media rights, something the Power conferences would never allow.

More likely, a law will be passed to create uniformity in pay-for-play across the states, maybe just for name and likeness, maybe for paying players directly as well. But that's all it will address. This law, merely by having been passed at a later date, would naturally supersede any anti-trust provisions that would conflict with it, but otherwise leave the NCAA subject to anti-trust in other areas.

Again, there's no reason to think Title IX will factor in to this, as neither congress nor the courts would ever allow any school to use the "need" to bid for players as an excuse to shirk their T9 responsibilities, any more than they allow the "need" to bid on coaches to do the same now.

The likely effect of all this will be to just make things harder on the "middle guys", not the little guys, because FCS and below aren't going to get involved in bidding for players anyway. The "middle guys", the G5 types that are already running big structural deficits funded by student fees and institutional transfers will be squeezed even more as they strive to ante-up to chase the quixotic dream. Because part of their package-of-persuasion to lure that 3* quarterback will now have to involved some more money on top of the scholarship.

I believe that's all correct. It's an excellent point that the Power 5 actually benefit from the NCAA *not* having an antitrust exemption. I also think that there's pretty much no political willpower to give the NCAA any type of antitrust exemption: conservatives and liberals both love using the NCAA as a punching bag equally. True pay for play directly from the schools could cause Title IX issues, but that's not going to be the case for third party compensation for likenesses (which is largely what we're dealing with in the new state laws that are being passed).

It's really not that complicated: the most likely outcome is that there's a national law that allows for athletes to be compensated for their likenesses similar to the California law that was passed. No more and no less. There seems to be this hope from some fans that the federal government will somehow use this issue to intervene further into other areas of college sports and I don't think that will be the case at all. I can't emphasize this enough: the NCAA is a true bipartisan unifying issue... in that both parties can't stand the NCAA. There's little evidence that Congress is going to help them out one bit on even a single issue, much less granting them an antitrust exemption.

Except that the Olympic model won’t work for college sports, doesn’t stop the runaway coaches salaries some politicians have attacked, and probably won’t funnel a dime to 90% of student athletes (thus doesn’t really solve the problem the public would like solved). An antitrust exemption with salary caps and revenue sharing is the only thing thats going to actually solve the problem. It’s the only thing that allows the athletes to share in the revenues, protect title 9 opportunities, while providing some sort of effective cost controls (which is clearly in the public interests—certainly for the public funded institutions). It also does this while avoiding damaging the end product (college football and basketball) which the general public is quite fond of. Most any other solution likely destroys the game as Americans have come to know it. It’s also worth noting that any “solution” that would likley result in a reduction in the number of scholarship opportunities is likely a non-starter.

About public demands, the most recent polls I've seen show about 65% public support for players receiving endorsements, but also 60% saying that scholarships are sufficient compensation for college athletes from the schools themselves. Those numbers can change but they do seem to indicate that the "endorsements" thing is what the pubic cares more about, which is probably why we've seen a lot more movement on that in the states. I haven't seen anything about coaching salaries being a big deal to anyone. Coaches make big money in all sports no caps in the NBA, NFL, etc.

As for caps on player money, market forces are always preferred, and the animating force behind this compensation movement is anger that players can't exploit opportunities that exist in the market. The only place that salary caps exist is in the pro sports leagues, and crucially from a public POV, these are agreed to by the players themselves via collective bargaining. A anti-trust exemption for NCAA would allow it to dictate caps without negotiating with players or coaches. There is zero evidence that anyone supports this.

And Title IX is not at risk under a market regime so it makes no sense to argue that it is endangered. Title IX will remain a constraint - if you want to hand out 85 football scholarships, you will still have to have X number of female athletes just like now. Schools will have to ensure that before they start bidding on 3* or 4* players.
02-11-2020 10:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 31,191
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1439
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #25
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
Its worth giving Steve Berkowitz a follow right now. He is monitoring all the legal issues bubbling up around the NCAA. Right now it looks like he is live tweeting from some sort of congressional hearing regarding proposed federal NIL legislation.

Here is Emmert's opening statement to outline the NCAA's position.

https://twitter.com/ByBerkowitz/status/1...18/photo/1
(This post was last modified: 02-12-2020 09:25 AM by Attackcoog.)
02-11-2020 11:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chester Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 212
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 26
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #26
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
For those who have been watching, one of TN's two NIL bills has a "James Wiseman" clause:

"A public institution of higher education shall not...Discriminate against a student athlete based on an athletic coach's donation to the public institution of higher education."
02-11-2020 11:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chester Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 212
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 26
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #27
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-11-2020 11:35 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Its worth giving Steve Berkowitz a follow right now. He is monitoring all the legal issues bubbling up around the NCAA. Right now it looks like he is live tweeting from some sort of conngressional hearing regarding proposed federal NIL legislation.

Here is Emmert's opening statement to outline the NCAA's position.

https://twitter.com/ByBerkowitz/status/1...18/photo/1

The opening statements of all five witnesses can be read here:

https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2020/2/n...mpensation

Note that Bob Bowlsby attached the ADU article you brought up a while back to his submitted, written opening statement.

EDIT: My biggest takeaways from that hearing are that college athletes have a friend in Sen. Blumenthal and Ramogi Huma continues to do yeoman's work. Guy's been traveling all over the place in recent months, speaking in support of the economic rights of college athletes. Basically a one-man machine against the NCAA, operating in face of its lobbying efforts.
(This post was last modified: 02-11-2020 01:04 PM by chester.)
02-11-2020 12:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 31,191
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1439
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #28
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-11-2020 12:29 PM)chester Wrote:  
(02-11-2020 11:35 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Its worth giving Steve Berkowitz a follow right now. He is monitoring all the legal issues bubbling up around the NCAA. Right now it looks like he is live tweeting from some sort of conngressional hearing regarding proposed federal NIL legislation.

Here is Emmert's opening statement to outline the NCAA's position.

https://twitter.com/ByBerkowitz/status/1...18/photo/1

The opening statements of all five witnesses can be read here:

https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2020/2/n...mpensation

Note that Bob Bowlsby attached the ADU article you brought up a while back to his submitted, written opening statement.

EDIT: My biggest takeaways from that hearing are that college athletes have a friend in Sen. Blumenthal and Ramogi Huma continues to do yeoman's work. Guy's been traveling all over the place in recent months, speaking in support of the economic rights of college athletes. Basically a one-man machine against the NCAA, operating in face of its lobbying efforts.

Nice find on the links. Looks like you can watch a video of the whole thing there as well.
02-11-2020 02:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 33,344
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 853
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #29
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-11-2020 02:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Nice find on the links. Looks like you can watch a video of the whole thing there as well.

That sounds extremely boring.
02-11-2020 05:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 31,191
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1439
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #30
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-11-2020 05:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-11-2020 02:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Nice find on the links. Looks like you can watch a video of the whole thing there as well.

That sounds extremely boring.

My nerd-dom has been revealed. 04-cheers
02-11-2020 05:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 33,344
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 853
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #31
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-11-2020 12:29 PM)chester Wrote:  Note that Bob Bowlsby attached the ADU article you brought up a while back to his submitted, written opening statement.

I just reviewed that ADU article you mention. Talk about a lot of nonsense. Looks like ADU is a group that represents athletic administrators so of course they want to cap coach salaries and player compensation, LOL.
02-11-2020 05:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,945
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 418
I Root For: Common Sense
Location: Nunnayadamnbusiness
Post: #32
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
I can’t think of a more horrifying scenario for college athletics than for there to be a unlevel playing field between the schools.
02-12-2020 07:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 33,344
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 853
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #33
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-12-2020 07:46 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I can’t think of a more horrifying scenario for college athletics than for there to be a unlevel playing field between the schools.

Yes, one of the jaw-dropping aspects of the Emmert/Bowlsby testimony was the mention of "competitive balance", when the existing balance is highly unbalanced and always has been, and there's no way of knowing what impact name-likeness money would have on the current (im)balance. It might actually lessen the imbalance, nobody knows.*

Emmert and Bowlsby came off to me of defenders of a status quo that has been very, very good to them over the years.



* Not that 'competitive balance' should trump a player's right to make money off his likeness, it shouldn't.
(This post was last modified: 02-12-2020 09:23 AM by quo vadis.)
02-12-2020 09:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chester Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 212
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 26
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #34
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-11-2020 05:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-11-2020 05:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-11-2020 02:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Nice find on the links. Looks like you can watch a video of the whole thing there as well.

That sounds extremely boring.

My nerd-dom has been revealed. 04-cheers

lol, I'm with you
02-12-2020 06:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chester Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 212
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 26
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #35
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-11-2020 05:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-11-2020 12:29 PM)chester Wrote:  Note that Bob Bowlsby attached the ADU article you brought up a while back to his submitted, written opening statement.

I just reviewed that ADU article you mention. Talk about a lot of nonsense. Looks like ADU is a group that represents athletic administrators so of course they want to cap coach salaries and player compensation, LOL.

Yeah, Bowlsby is dreaming if he thinks there's any chance Congress will regulate spending on facilities and coaches. Not going to happen.
02-12-2020 06:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chester Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 212
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 26
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #36
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
It'll be interesting to see what happens if Congress doesn't pass something by summer. (Probably won't, if ever.)

There are a handful of state bills that have nothing to say about conferences or athletic associations. Such bills are designed to avoid a challenge by the NCAA under the commerce clause.

Among those bills are the ones rapidly moving through Florida's legislature. HB7051 just cleared its last committee hurdle and will probably be passed by the full House sometime soon.

Thing is, as it's currently written that bill and its close companion in the Senate would take effect this July, months before the NCAA is due to vote on any possible rule changes.

The good news for the Cartel is that Florida's bills are more NCAA-friendly than most all others. 03-puke
02-12-2020 06:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 31,191
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1439
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #37
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-12-2020 06:37 PM)chester Wrote:  
(02-11-2020 05:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-11-2020 12:29 PM)chester Wrote:  Note that Bob Bowlsby attached the ADU article you brought up a while back to his submitted, written opening statement.

I just reviewed that ADU article you mention. Talk about a lot of nonsense. Looks like ADU is a group that represents athletic administrators so of course they want to cap coach salaries and player compensation, LOL.

Yeah, Bowlsby is dreaming if he thinks there's any chance Congress will regulate spending on facilities and coaches. Not going to happen.

I dont think that was what he was aiming at. My view is---if we take a step back--few of the schools are really making any money and college athletics as a whole is a money losing operation. That said---even if we left the current schools budgets basically where they are---there is some money that could be going to players. Is there really any reason we are paying coaches 7 million and players zero other than this model has dicatated coaches salaries are a variable capitalistic free agent market and the players are amateurs that cant receive anything? If you had a model that set out to share the limited revenue more equitably between all stake holders it would probably cap coaching salaries at "X" percent of a schools budget and set "X" amount to the school revenue aside to be shared with players. Thats the reason I think the long term answer is an anti-trust exemption for the NCAA in exchange for allowing government to preform a continuous oversight/regulatory function over college athletics and the NCAA (cuz the NCAA cant be trusted). If the schools weren't losing money on athletics---something more capitalistic might work--but this model that has emerged doesn't really adhere to the capitalistic model nor does it really follow a strict amateur model. Its a hodepodge model that developed over a century where the base design never envisioned huge TV revenue, million dollar coaches, and massive government required Title 9 responsibilities.

To me, the legal challenges facing College Sports reminds me of the challenges women's sports are facing with the transgender issue. There is no easy way to just legalize transgender athletes in womens sports without undermining the entire competitive concept of women's sports as we know them. College Sports is facing similar challenges to the amateur model that threaten to undermine the major revenue sports as we know them.
(This post was last modified: 02-12-2020 07:32 PM by Attackcoog.)
02-12-2020 07:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chester Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 212
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 26
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #38
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-12-2020 07:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-12-2020 06:37 PM)chester Wrote:  
(02-11-2020 05:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-11-2020 12:29 PM)chester Wrote:  Note that Bob Bowlsby attached the ADU article you brought up a while back to his submitted, written opening statement.

I just reviewed that ADU article you mention. Talk about a lot of nonsense. Looks like ADU is a group that represents athletic administrators so of course they want to cap coach salaries and player compensation, LOL.

Yeah, Bowlsby is dreaming if he thinks there's any chance Congress will regulate spending on facilities and coaches. Not going to happen.

I dont think that was what he was aiming at. My view is---if we take a step back--few of the schools are really making any money and college athletics as a whole is a money losing operation. That said---even if we left the current schools budgets basically where they are---there is some money that could be going to players. Is there really any reason we are paying coaches 7 million and players zero other than thats where this model has dicatated one is a variable capitalistic cost and the other is a amateur that cant receive anything? If you had a model that capped coaching salaries at "X" percent of a schools budget and said "X" amount to the school revenue had to be shared with players. Thats the reason I think the long term answer is an anti-trust exemption for the NCAA in exchange for allowing government to preform a continuous oversight/regulatory function over college athletics and the NCAA. If the schools weren't losing money on athletics---something more capitalistic might work--but this model that has emerged doesn't really adhere to the capitalistic model nor does it really follow a strict amateur model. Its a hodepodge model that developed over a century where the base design never envisioned huge TV revenue, million dollar coaches, and massive government required Title 9 responsibilities.

The problem there is that you're artificially capping both players' compensation and coaches' compensation without their agreement. Two wrongs don't make a right.

The obvious way to naturally reduce spending on both facilities and coaches is to lift the caps on athletes' compensation.
02-12-2020 07:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 38,364
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1270
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #39
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-12-2020 09:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-12-2020 07:46 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I can’t think of a more horrifying scenario for college athletics than for there to be a unlevel playing field between the schools.

Yes, one of the jaw-dropping aspects of the Emmert/Bowlsby testimony was the mention of "competitive balance", when the existing balance is highly unbalanced and always has been, and there's no way of knowing what impact name-likeness money would have on the current (im)balance. It might actually lessen the imbalance, nobody knows.*

Emmert and Bowlsby came off to me of defenders of a status quo that has been very, very good to them over the years.



* Not that 'competitive balance' should trump a player's right to make money off his likeness, it shouldn't.

I think its pretty obvious this will increase the gap between the top 20 and the rest of the P5 and between the P5 and the G5.
02-12-2020 07:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 38,364
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1270
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #40
RE: 'A nightmare for college athletics'
(02-12-2020 07:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-12-2020 06:37 PM)chester Wrote:  
(02-11-2020 05:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-11-2020 12:29 PM)chester Wrote:  Note that Bob Bowlsby attached the ADU article you brought up a while back to his submitted, written opening statement.

I just reviewed that ADU article you mention. Talk about a lot of nonsense. Looks like ADU is a group that represents athletic administrators so of course they want to cap coach salaries and player compensation, LOL.

Yeah, Bowlsby is dreaming if he thinks there's any chance Congress will regulate spending on facilities and coaches. Not going to happen.

I dont think that was what he was aiming at. My view is---if we take a step back--few of the schools are really making any money and college athletics as a whole is a money losing operation. That said---even if we left the current schools budgets basically where they are---there is some money that could be going to players. Is there really any reason we are paying coaches 7 million and players zero other than this model has dicatated coaches salaries are a variable capitalistic free agent market and the players are amateurs that cant receive anything? If you had a model that set out to share the limited revenue more equitably between all stake holders it would probably cap coaching salaries at "X" percent of a schools budget and set "X" amount to the school revenue aside to be shared with players. Thats the reason I think the long term answer is an anti-trust exemption for the NCAA in exchange for allowing government to preform a continuous oversight/regulatory function over college athletics and the NCAA (cuz the NCAA cant be trusted). If the schools weren't losing money on athletics---something more capitalistic might work--but this model that has emerged doesn't really adhere to the capitalistic model nor does it really follow a strict amateur model. Its a hodepodge model that developed over a century where the base design never envisioned huge TV revenue, million dollar coaches, and massive government required Title 9 responsibilities.

I don't think that would pass constitutional muster. In the sports leagues, the unions agree to the cap. In this case it would be imposed on the coaches.
02-12-2020 07:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2020 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, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.