State of California and NCAA may reach tipping point

[Muskie]

Link (https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/california-assembly-passes-sb-206-that-brings-state-to-verge-of-rules-showdown-with-ncaa/ar-AAH39Ep?ocid=spartanntp)



According to a history and summary of the bill that was written last week by the staff of an Assembly committee and includes comments for and against, Stanford University’s written opposition states, in part, that the bill "is inconsistent with recent court rulings …that determined that all student-athlete benefits must be tied directly to education purposes only."One of the rulings specifically cited by Stanford is pending with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.NCAA rules presently allow athletes to make money from their name, image or likeness, but only under a series of specific conditions, including that no reference can be made to their involvement in college sports.

[xubrew]

The bill is kind of sloppily written. If all endorsements have to be "of an educational purpose," and they cannot conflict with any apparel contract that a school has that is already in place, then what else is left? Most deals that athletic departments make, especially apparel deals, are exclusive.

My thinking is that if this is going to happen, it won't be because of this California bill. It will be because of the P5. They can do it. They can make it so that players at P5 schools are allowed to make money off of their likenesses. If they do that, then the rest of the NCAA will do it within a year.

[noteggs]

Interesting response from the NCAA

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/ncaa-responds-california-senate-bill-206

[XUGRAD80]

I think that is a very good response by the NCAA and brings up the one fact that seems to escape so many politicians at state levels...NATIONAL means NATIONAL!

It’s the NATIONAL Collegiate Athletic Administration, not the CALIFORNIA CAA. If you want the universities and athletes in your state to compete for NATIONAL championships, the rules have to be the same for ALL universities across the country. Additionally, the choice to compete under NCAA sanctioning is just that...a choice. No university MUST be a member of the NCAA. If you don’t like the rules of that organization, find a different one or even start up a new one.

Seems to me that those politicians should have enough other things to concern themselves with. Stay out of college athletics.

[surfxu]

How about that... wow... basically "if you pass this law then all of the universities in California are out of all NCAA competitions". No NCAA tournaments at all. Got to imagine that all other universities in all other states would not schedule CA teams leaving them all to fill out their schedules to just play each other!

[XUGRAD80]

How about that... wow... basically "if you pass this law then all of the universities in California are out of all NCAA competitions". No NCAA tournaments at all. Got to imagine that all other universities in all other states would not schedule CA teams leaving them all to fill out their schedules to just play each other!

If that is the response then the state of California plans to take the NCAA to court and charge it with restraint of interstate trade....what a mess.

Xavier fans really need to be wary of this. iF it ever gets to a situation where college athletes CAN be paid for the use of their image, etc. then Xavier will be at a drastic disadvantage to all other schools that can ensure the athletes of a much greater opportunity to cash in on their status as a college athlete. Heck, Xavier can’t even get a coach’s show on local TV, does anyone realistically believe that the basketball players at OSU, Indiana, WV, UL, etc. won’t have a much greater opportunity to sell their images and profit off of their status as a college athlete than the ones that attend Xavier? Talk about an uneven playing field.

[xubrew]

Interesting response from the NCAA

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/ncaa-responds-california-senate-bill-206

It's a pretty weak response.

1. I seriously doubt that California is going to change their minds, but like I said earlier I don't think that's really going to matter.

2. It makes claims that aren't true, most notably that close to 500,000 all compete under the same rules. They don't. Each division has different rules, and in some cases each conference has different rules. It also makes claims that there is currently a level playing field, when there isn't. The NAIA has a level playing field (or close to it). When virtually every conference gets at least two teams into a 32 team tournament, that's a level playing field. The NCAA does not. It's not even close.

3. If it is their belief that "The NCAA has consistently stood by its belief that student-athletes are students first, and they should not be employees of the university." Okay, that's great. The problem is that the NLRB has already ruled contrary to this. If you believe in one thing, and the court rules differently, guess who wins. If the NCAA REALLY wants to address this problem then they need to quit pretending that the things they simply say are rock solid just because they said so. They are not.

4. To build on that, if they REALLY think that the distinction between amateur sports and pro sports is critical, then they need to do more than just say that. I can tell you right now what the arguments will be agains the NCAA. Div3 receives no scholarships and no cost of living, yet it gets nowhere near the attention that div1 gets despite those players being able to get full rides and cost of attendance. They said the same thing about cost of attendance, yet the popularity of college sports didn't go down once it was implemented. Can they explain why it didn't?? Can they explain why the players who are paid the most are the ones that play on the teams and in the division that generates the most interest?? Can they actually quantitatively prove what they are saying is true? Because if they cannot, then they will lose.



The NCAA has been getting it's ass kicked all over the place in court for the last several years. I would STRONGLY advise them to try and stay out of court. I don't know exactly how, but the NCAA needs to try and work out some sort of an agreement that satisfies those advocating for pay for play, and allows them to keep some sort of control. If they don't, and this goes to court, they will lose. They will lose HUGE. They simply cannot prove to a court that what they are saying is true. They haven't been able to do that for the last several years, and I don't see that changing now. I realize that they may have to make concessions that they do not want to make, but if they don't do that now, then we will probably all be wishing they had in a few years.

[waggy]

It's a pretty weak response.

1. I seriously doubt that California is going to change their minds, but like I said earlier I don't think that's really going to matter.

2. It makes claims that aren't true, most notably that close to 500,000 all compete under the same rules. They don't. Each division has different rules, and in some cases each conference has different rules. It also makes claims that there is currently a level playing field, when there isn't. The NAIA has a level playing field (or close to it). When virtually every conference gets at least two teams into a 32 team tournament, that's a level playing field. The NCAA does not. It's not even close.

3. If it is their belief that "The NCAA has consistently stood by its belief that student-athletes are students first, and they should not be employees of the university." Okay, that's great. The problem is that the NLRB has already ruled contrary to this. If you believe in one thing, and the court rules differently, guess who wins. If the NCAA REALLY wants to address this problem then they need to quit pretending that the things they simply say are rock solid just because they said so. They are not.

4. To build on that, if they REALLY think that the distinction between amateur sports and pro sports is critical, then they need to do more than just say that. I can tell you right now what the arguments will be agains the NCAA. Div3 receives no scholarships and no cost of living, yet it gets nowhere near the attention that div1 gets despite those players being able to get full rides and cost of attendance. They said the same thing about cost of attendance, yet the popularity of college sports didn't go down once it was implemented. Can they explain why it didn't?? Can they explain why the players who are paid the most are the ones that play on the teams and in the division that generates the most interest?? Can they actually quantitatively prove what they are saying is true? Because if they cannot, then they will lose.



The NCAA has been getting it's ass kicked all over the place in court for the last several years. I would STRONGLY advise them to try and stay out of court. I don't know exactly how, but the NCAA needs to try and work out some sort of an agreement that satisfies those advocating for pay for play, and allows them to keep some sort of control. If they don't, and this goes to court, they will lose. They will lose HUGE. They simply cannot prove to a court that what they are saying is true. They haven't been able to do that for the last several years, and I don't see that changing now. I realize that they may have to make concessions that they do not want to make, but if they don't do that now, then we will probably all be wishing they had in a few years.


Huh? All D1 players play under the same rules the way I see it. Maybe I'm missing where different conferences have different rules?

[xubrew]

Huh? All D1 players play under the same rules the way I see it. Maybe I'm missing where different conferences have different rules?

There are three divisions, not one, and they said that all 1100ish schools and 480,000ish student athletes were all the same. They’re not.

As far as different conferences having different rules, the P5 has different rules In the sense that they can make their own rules that only apply to them and no one else can.

Two other differences that come to mind are that the Ivy League doesn’t allow athletic scholarships. Neither does the PFL.

Now if the NCAA can somehow prove that the Ivy League and the PFL are the most popular conferences in all of college sports because they are more amateur than all the others, then they’ve got way less to worry about.

[waggy]

Three divisions? Ok, and this is a problem why? If you can't understand why divisions exist no one can't help you.

If the P5 has different rules, site them. Then we can consider if they make sense.

The Ivy League don't have scholarships because they don't want to give them. Are you saying the NCAA (or better yet, some court) should make them? How do they field a team? At gunpoint?

Popularity? Next thing you'll say is that women pro atheletes "deserve" what men get. But you're right, popularity does drive things, it's just you're oblivious to what that means.

Ultimately, how does a school such as X use it's "profit"?

[Roadlife]

Sounds like a ca-ca idea.

[xubrew]

Three divisions? Ok, and this is a problem why? If you can't understand why divisions exist no one can't help you.

If the P5 has different rules, site them. Then we can consider if they make sense.

The Ivy League don't have scholarships because they don't want to give them. Are you saying the NCAA (or better yet, some court) should make them? How do they field a team? At gunpoint?

Popularity? Next thing you'll say is that women pro atheletes "deserve" what men get. But you're right, popularity does drive things, it's just you're oblivious to what that means.

Ultimately, how does a school such as X use it's "profit"?

Okay, I really hope you are just kidding. But in case you're not....

The only "problem" is that the NCAA said something in their statement that is categorically not true.

From their statement....


Right now, nearly half a million student-athletes in all 50 states compete under the same rules

That is false. I mean...would the NCAA care to explain why they have three completely different compliance manuals then if all the rules are the same? The athletes in div1 compete under a completely different set of rules than the athletes in div3, and EVERYBODY knows it.

The different rules for the Power Five have been around for a while now. It was in all the papers. Ultimately the rule for them is that they have the autonomy, or the power, to make their own rules that only apply to them. Hence the term POWER Five. I suppose they could have been called the Autonomous Five, but Power Five sounded better

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/11321551/ncaa-board-votes-allow-autonomy-five-power-conferences


The NCAA's stance is that the primary appeal of college sports is that they are amateur. But, that's nonsense. If that were true then div3, the Ivy League, and the PFL would be hugely popular since they are more amateur than the SEC. Their players don't receive scholarships or cost of living, and their coaches aren't paid nearly as much. I foresee that being an issue if this lands in court just as it was the last time.

And no, I don't think the Ivy League should have to pay their players. I don't think anyone should have to pay their players. That's really not the issue. I think the ultimate death nail to the NCAA will be something like this....

If schools were allowed to pay players, would any of them do it??

The answer is yes. I mean hell, some of them do it already and they're not allowed to.

And, that's the biggest issue. It can easily be argued in court that the NCAA is price fixing and that players are being denied their fair market value. In fact it would almost be impossible for the NCAA to argue against that. NLRB has ruled that college players are athletes. Yet, the NCAA has specific rules about what they can and cannot receive that all schools agree to. That is the textbook definition of price fixing.

So, in looking at this the way I think the courts will, the ruling won't be that schools have to pay their athletes. They're already paying them more than what the minimum wage is anyway. It's that the "amateurism" rules that put limits on what players are allowed to receive will be deemed illegal. Not all schools will have to pay athletes, and many schools won't, but the ones that decide they want to will not be prevented from doing so. And, I don't see how the NCAA can get around that, especially when you consider how they've been failing to get around anything else these days.

And yeah, it kinda worries me. I'd love it if they could work something out so it doesn't come to that, but I can't say that I have a whole lot of hope. I think that sooner or later, and it may be sooner, the NCAA is gonna get absolutely crushed.

[XUGRAD80]

And if that happens....what’s next?

[waggy]

Okay, I really hope you are just kidding. But in case you're not....

The only "problem" is that the NCAA said something in their statement that is categorically not true.

From their statement....



That is false. I mean...would the NCAA care to explain why they have three completely different compliance manuals then if all the rules are the same? The athletes in div1 compete under a completely different set of rules than the athletes in div3, and EVERYBODY knows it.

The different rules for the Power Five have been around for a while now. It was in all the papers. Ultimately the rule for them is that they have the autonomy, or the power, to make their own rules that only apply to them. Hence the term POWER Five. I suppose they could have been called the Autonomous Five, but Power Five sounded better

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/11321551/ncaa-board-votes-allow-autonomy-five-power-conferences


The NCAA's stance is that the primary appeal of college sports is that they are amateur. But, that's nonsense. If that were true then div3, the Ivy League, and the PFL would be hugely popular since they are more amateur than the SEC. Their players don't receive scholarships or cost of living, and their coaches aren't paid nearly as much. I foresee that being an issue if this lands in court just as it was the last time.

And no, I don't think the Ivy League should have to pay their players. I don't think anyone should have to pay their players. That's really not the issue. I think the ultimate death nail to the NCAA will be something like this....

If schools were allowed to pay players, would any of them do it??

The answer is yes. I mean hell, some of them do it already and they're not allowed to.

And, that's the biggest issue. It can easily be argued in court that the NCAA is price fixing and that players are being denied their fair market value. In fact it would almost be impossible for the NCAA to argue against that. NLRB has ruled that college players are athletes. Yet, the NCAA has specific rules about what they can and cannot receive that all schools agree to. That is the textbook definition of price fixing.

So, in looking at this the way I think the courts will, the ruling won't be that schools have to pay their athletes. They're already paying them more than what the minimum wage is anyway. It's that the "amateurism" rules that put limits on what players are allowed to receive will be deemed illegal. Not all schools will have to pay athletes, and many schools won't, but the ones that decide they want to will not be prevented from doing so. And, I don't see how the NCAA can get around that, especially when you consider how they've been failing to get around anything else these days.

And yeah, it kinda worries me. I'd love it if they could work something out so it doesn't come to that, but I can't say that I have a whole lot of hope. I think that sooner or later, and it may be sooner, the NCAA is gonna get absolutely crushed.


Pretty much all professional sports control compensation. They do so so that all markets have a chance to compete, and to restrict teams from purchasing championships. And it is believed to result in greater fan interest on the whole. Do you really need me to tell you this?

The NCAA is simply an association. No member is forced to join. It makes rules that seek reasonable competitive balance opportunity. If you don't like those rules then join another association or start your own. And maybe California should do just that. And good luck with that.

Maybe just maybe CA politicians are attention whores.


"I just want to say, 'NCAA, don't threaten California. Don't threaten us,'" Democratic Sen. Sydney Kamlager-Dove said Monday, per USA Today (https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2019/09/09/california-assembly-bill-allows-college-athletes-use-likeness/2269869001/). "Because we have formidable schools. We have formidable alumni. And we have formidable viewership."

[waggy]

I don't think the NCAA is threatening CA. I think they are telling them we have rules, play by them or fuck off.

[xubrew]

And if that happens....what’s next?

I don't know. It’s not fun to think about and you really hope it doesn’t get to that point. Your big money schools will pay players, and get better players. Those that are just scraping by will pay less or nothing at all and get players that aren't as good. It may not look a whole lot different than it does right now in regards to what teams and conferences are dominant, but who knows?

I think the NCAA should be far more concerned about this than what they are. Not specifically the California bill, but just in general.

Just about a month ago, there was this...

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/27210000/ncaa-start-paying-athletes-208m-settlement

So, what's next? What finally has to happen in order for the NCAA to realize they haven't been winning, and they likely won't win whenever they land in court?? Every time the NCAA gets taken to court over anything related to pay for play, they lose. I know that they don't WANT to pay athletes. I know that a lot of people agree with them because they like the amateurism ideal/model. But at what point will the NCAA finally start to realize that if they don't start making concessions that the courts will likely do it for them?? That's already happening. My fear is that in the end they'll end up way worse off because they failed to realize that their case just wasn't winnable.

[xubrew]

Pretty much all professional sports control compensation. They do so so that all markets have a chance to compete, and to restrict teams from purchasing championships. And it is believed to result in greater fan interest on the whole. Do you really need me to tell you this?


Do you really need me to tell you that the NCAA has nothing that even remotely resembles a player's union??

[bjf123]

I don't think the NCAA is threatening CA. I think they are telling them we have rules, play by them or fuck off.

Sums it up nicely!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[waggy]

Do you really need me to tell you that the NCAA has nothing that even remotely resembles a player's union??

It doesn't change the fact that there will be haves and have nots. I realize that is the case now, but it only gets worse with pay for play.

[sirthought]

Getting paid by a shoe company or McDonald's is one thing, but if a taxpayer funded institution starts to pay athletes in some sports and not others, or the top player for one sport isn't getting what the top player for another sport is...then this goes up the flagpole even further. And it should.

Look, we all know how much colleges gain from their performance on the court, but athletes don't have to play in college. They don't. They can organize a minor league just like everywhere else in the world and they'll have to compete with even more experienced men. They don't have to follow that NCAA system. But there are enough benefits out of it that the majority who can just earn a spot on a team will try to do just that, scholarship or not.

As a taxpayer, I'm not interested in the politics and lobbying that it's going to take to get certain players to play at Big State U, but we're still funding money to Wee Mac College. It becomes a case of why even try. And why are we spending money on this when they can't compete? Then, as a taxpayer, I'm going to ask someone that controls funding on some level to look for a way to make it more balanced. But they can't. But as taxpayers we shouldn't be subjected to the needs of an eighteen year old who's holding out for the best offer. The competition is entertaining, but people have bigger problems in life.

I have no issue if a coach stops earning their extra salary from a shoe contract and that gets diverted into giving kids more money during the time they are there. I'm all for saying that players can earn a percentage from a video game for using their likeness.

We haven't even gotten into how does this effect play on the field if guys are worrying at this level about what they have to do to earn more. It's a mess and this bill is really going to make it more of a mess if it leads to college teams putting out money.

[XUGRAD80]

The bill has nothing to do with any college paying any players.

It states that it would be illegal for a college in the state of California to declare a student-athlete ineligible, and to revoke their scholarship, because the student-athlete received compensation for the use of their image.

Of course, receiving such compensation is against NCAA rules and regulations, so the colleges are stuck right in the middle.

If they do declare an athlete ineligible and revoke their scholarship, they face legal proceedings and the consequences of that.
If they don’t declare them ineligible then they face penalties from the NCAA, or any other sanctioning body.

The NCAA is justifiably upset by the idea that one state has taken it upon themselves to pass legislation (and all it needs is the governors signature to become law in 2023 at this point) that upsets the competitive balance across the whole country and gives the schools in that state an unfair advantage over all others.

The NCAA’s position at this time is not that the rules regarding compensation of this type SHOULD be revised and updated, but that it should be done on a national basis and not on a state by state basis. The state legislature (both houses have passed the legislation with NO opposition) is doing this in order to place pressure on the NCAA to act before it becomes law.

The problem as I see it.....allowing student athletes to be compensated for the use of their image opens up a whole box of potential problems and questions that will only result in much more in the way of rules and regulations. In addition, it gives an unfair advantage to those universities that have little or no competition in their specific geographic areas or industry leading sports.

For example...

Who decides how much the student-athlete can be paid for the use of their image?
Who decides just who can pay this? Does it have to be a company? Can it be a booster?
Is it paid directly to the player? Or the school?
Can the S-A now hire an agent to handle this?
How is this going to effect Title IX...will the companies/boosters be forced to pay male and female athletes the same amount? And if they don’t, will the university be in trouble for it?
Are the student-athletes going to be considered employees of the university? Or independent contractors?
What’s to keep someone like Nike or Coke from using the image of some hot-shot freshman/HS star in a national ad and paying them millions?

Also...

Even if it goes nationwide....doesn’t that mean that schools like Ohio State or U of Kentucky will have an even greater advantage over schools like Xavier? I mean c’mon, you can’t tell me that a student-athlete at X will have the same opportunities to cash in as one at OSU will have, let alone those at UK. Keep in mind that this effect ALL student-athletes, not just basketball. Baseball, soccer, swimming, women’s sports, etc. Baseball isn’t really that big around here, but it certainly is in Florida. I can also see where a potential recruit might choose one conference over another just because of the potential within that conference to make money, based on the interest generated by that conference....Football- SEC/Big10. Basketball-ACC. Or choose a school based on the media market and/or marketing potential within the geographic area...NYC, LA, Chicago etc.

Pandora’s box. I see nothing good coming out of this whole mess.

[XUGRAD80]

Some other thoughts/questions...

This will undoubtedly go to court at some point, and if the courts uphold this new law, what next?

Can a state legislature pass laws that effect other NCAA rules and regulations, such as...

Scholarship limits? What if the California Legislature decides that having scholarship limits is unfair to those students that want to go to a California school but can’t because the school has already given out all of its available (under current limits) scholarships? Will they pass a law saying the NCAA can’t place limits on how many scholarships a school can give out?

Can they pass laws demanding that a certain % of athletic scholarships must go to state residents? Minorities? Disadvantaged youth? Etc.

Right now the NCAA has rules limiting the available scholarships that many of the so called minor sports can give out. In many cases the available scholarships are not enough to field a full team and are split into partial scholarships so more people can get something. What if they pass a law requiring every student-athlete to get a full scholarship? Who pays for that? Couldn’t that result in a lot of sports being dropped?

Bottom line....once you start letting legislative bodies writing the rules, anything goes. There are no limits to what can happen.

[muskiefan82]

this may be a stupid question, but does the word "likeness" mean the same thing as the "actual" image of a person? To me "Likeness" indicates the use of an image that is so similar in appearance to the actual person that it is obvious that it is supposed to represent the actual person (such as in a video game). In that case, I think the "user" of the "likeness" should pay. As for universities using the actual image of a player, is that considered a "likeness"? To me, these are different things.

[xubrew]

It doesn't change the fact that there will be haves and have nots. I realize that is the case now, but it only gets worse with pay for play.

I agree.

Now, if only that were a legitimate legal defense. It's not. It's one that the NCAA seems to be going to, but they keep losing.

To me, this is not a discussion about whether athletes should or should not be paid. We are way past that now. This is a discussion on what the NCAA needs to do in order to stop getting destroyed in court and to keep from losing everything. What they've been doing for the last several years isn't working. Saying it will "get worse" won't work either.

[xubrew]

Getting paid by a shoe company or McDonald's is one thing, but if a taxpayer funded institution starts to pay athletes in some sports and not others, or the top player for one sport isn't getting what the top player for another sport is...then this goes up the flagpole even further. And it should.

Look, we all know how much colleges gain from their performance on the court, but athletes don't have to play in college. They don't. They can organize a minor league just like everywhere else in the world and they'll have to compete with even more experienced men. They don't have to follow that NCAA system. But there are enough benefits out of it that the majority who can just earn a spot on a team will try to do just that, scholarship or not.

As a taxpayer, I'm not interested in the politics and lobbying that it's going to take to get certain players to play at Big State U, but we're still funding money to Wee Mac College. It becomes a case of why even try. And why are we spending money on this when they can't compete? Then, as a taxpayer, I'm going to ask someone that controls funding on some level to look for a way to make it more balanced. But they can't. But as taxpayers we shouldn't be subjected to the needs of an eighteen year old who's holding out for the best offer. The competition is entertaining, but people have bigger problems in life.

I have no issue if a coach stops earning their extra salary from a shoe contract and that gets diverted into giving kids more money during the time they are there. I'm all for saying that players can earn a percentage from a video game for using their likeness.

We haven't even gotten into how does this effect play on the field if guys are worrying at this level about what they have to do to earn more. It's a mess and this bill is really going to make it more of a mess if it leads to college teams putting out money.


Making this argument is a bad idea.

If McDonalds, Wendys, Hardees, and Burger King all agreed to only pay their cooks and cashiers $9 an hour as a means of keeping the cost of overhead down and to avoid bidding wars for employees, that would be illegal. Saying "well, people don't HAVE to work at our restaurants, they can work at other restaurants or in other industries" doesn't make it any less illegal. It's price fixing, and it denies workers the right to whatever their fair market value is.

In my opinion, THAT is what is going to ultimately break college sports. This California bill might push the issue, but it won't ultimately be what kills it. If you read it, it's actually not THAT bad. What the NCAA really needs to watch out for are these other cases that are pushing for players to have access to the free market. Some of those have a lot of teeth. If that lands in court, and all the NCAA shows up with is "It will make it worse," or "They don't have to play college sports," or my personal favorite "We believe that amateurism is vital" then GOOD NIGHT EVERYONE!!

So, I think the NCAA should SERIOUSLY explore ways to keep that from happening and to stop doubling down on all the things that have not been working these past few years.

[Final4]

Making this argument is a bad idea.

If McDonalds, Wendys, Hardees, and Burger King all agreed to only pay their cooks and cashiers $9 an hour as a means of keeping the cost of overhead down and to avoid bidding wars for employees, that would be illegal. Saying "well, people don't HAVE to work at our restaurants, they can work at other restaurants or in other industries" doesn't make it any less illegal. It's price fixing, and it denies workers the right to whatever their fair market value is.

In my opinion, THAT is what is going to ultimately break college sports. This California bill might push the issue, but it won't ultimately be what kills it. If you read it, it's actually not THAT bad. What the NCAA really needs to watch out for are these other cases that are pushing for players to have access to the free market. Some of those have a lot of teeth. If that lands in court, and all the NCAA shows up with is "It will make it worse," or "They don't have to play college sports," or my personal favorite "We believe that amateurism is vital" then GOOD NIGHT EVERYONE!!

So, I think the NCAA should SERIOUSLY explore ways to keep that from happening and to stop doubling down on all the things that have not been working these past few years.

Maybe I simply don't have the IQ points to totally comprehend this but who ultimately benefits from this? At the end of the day who is the winner?

[xubrew]

Maybe I simply don't have the IQ points to totally comprehend this but who ultimately benefits from this? At the end of the day who is the winner?

Great question. I admit that my instincts are usually pessimistic, but I'd say there would be far more losers than winners if they don't get a handle on this. The players who are good enough to get paid will win, the lawyers who are dying to get this to trial because see dollar signs and fame will win. I suppose the power programs who put money into paying players instead of all kinds of other stuff won't be the worst thing in the world.

But for the most part the already wide gap between the halves and the halves nots will likely get wider, some schools will stretch themselves too far in an attempt to keep up, and some others may just give up.

Having said that, I thought the P5 would damage college sports far more than it has. For the most part, the non-P5 schools seem to be keeping up just as much as before. Maybe that will be the case again this time if this all plays out, but I don't think so.

[JTG]

Making this argument is a bad idea.

If McDonalds, Wendys, Hardees, and Burger King all agreed to only pay their cooks and cashiers $9 an hour as a means of keeping the cost of overhead down and to avoid bidding wars for employees, that would be illegal. Saying "well, people don't HAVE to work at our restaurants, they can work at other restaurants or in other industries" doesn't make it any less illegal. It's price fixing, and it denies workers the right to whatever their fair market value.
Don't McDonalds, Wendy's, Hardees and Burger King already do that. All those places pay about the same. Schools will just use generic images.

[Final4]

Great question. I admit that my instincts are usually pessimistic, but I'd say there would be far more losers than winners if they don't get a handle on this. The players who are good enough to get paid will win, the lawyers who are dying to get this to trial because see dollar signs and fame will win. I suppose the power programs who put money into paying players instead of all kinds of other stuff won't be the worst thing in the world.

But for the most part the already wide gap between the halves and the halves nots will likely get wider, some schools will stretch themselves too far in an attempt to keep up, and some others may just give up.

Having said that, I thought the P5 would damage college sports far more than it has. For the most part, the non-P5 schools seem to be keeping up just as much as before. Maybe that will be the case again this time if this all plays out, but I don't think so.

I recognize that football clouds the issue and makes this discussion more complex
........therefore I'm going to ignore it. We start every basketball season with 350 teams. Every team has the opportunity to play for the national championship. No team is institutionally advantaged. By that I mean every team has 13 scholarships, plays on 10' rims, etc. Clearly certain schools have better coaches, attract better players, have a greater tradition. But there is nothing that precludes Belmont from going out and getting a coach who can bring in 5 star players. I think this concept is something that most schools embrace. And in doing so I think they endorse the NCAA model and thus agree to comply with all rules and regulations. I'm old school. I don't like the idea of paying players. Why would I sit around and pretend that watching UK play (with a player payroll of $500k) is college sports. It's semi-pro and I would have no interest in that. I don't think that gap between schools get bigger. To the contrary I think 330 schools endorse the NCAA model (and compete for national championships) and 20 schools play each other in a semi-pro league..........and beg for re-admittance in few years when their experiment fails.

[xubrew]

The problem is that simply saying you like it the way it is now isn’t necessarily going to keep it that way. I don’t think the NCAA, or it’s members, really grasps that. Another thing that doesn’t help is that I think a lot of their lawyers are kinda stupid.

[sirthought]

The McDonald's I was referring to is if a player(s) were offered compensation for appearing in a McDonald's promotion.

And price fixing is a consumer price. It's not fixing employee compensation, which happens all the time. And if you don't like it, you most certainly don't work there.

I hope the NCAA doubles down HARD. I could care less if one or two states schools become disqualified, lawsuits happen, contracts broken, etc. As long as schools don't have the situation develop where they are expected to pay more for those student athletes to be in the program than is already happening with facilities, academics, and free training for their friggin' chosen endeavor.

Again, if we re-situate a shoe contract to give athletes some more spending money, and it's going to the tennis team, bowling team, and every other team, I think that's up to the shoe company what they feel that programs' athletes are worth to them. In fact, maybe coaches not getting those contracts would be a better thing to ensure that dirty undertable payoffs aren't happening. If the apparel industry wants to be in bed with the NCAA to help out some college kids, so be it.

[xubrew]

Wage fixing is illegal in the same way price fixing is. You are severely mistaken if you think otherwise.

You’ll probably get your wish. The NCAA will likely keep doubling down. That’s what they’ve been doing for the last several years and the fact that they keep getting creamed hasn’t stopped them. I think it’s stupid to keep doubling down because I don’t think they can win by doing that, but that’s probably what they’ll do. The first time they try and bar a school from the postseason, they’ll be sued, and they’ll probably lose. Again.

[JTG]

Wage fixing is illegal in the same way price fixing is. You are severely mistaken if you think otherwise.

You’ll probably get your wish. The NCAA will likely keep doubling down. That’s what they’ve been doing for the last several years and the fact that they keep getting creamed hasn’t stopped them. I think it’s stupid to keep doubling down because I don’t think they can win by doing that, but that’s probably what they’ll do. The first time they try and bar a school from the postseason, they’ll be sued, and they’ll probably lose. Again.

What fairy tale land do you live in ? Fast food places, along with thousands of other businesses pay the same wage ALL THE TIME. As long as it's at least the minimum wage it's legal. Go buy a bag of chips at different stores. Lays are the same price at Meijer, Kroger, Bobs, etc.

[xubrew]

What fairy tale land do you live in ? Fast food places, along with thousands of other businesses pay the same wage ALL THE TIME. As long as it's at least the minimum wage it's legal. Go buy a bag of chips at different stores. Lays are the same price at Meijer, Kroger, Bobs, etc.

If competing companies make agreements with one another on what the prices of their products will be and what the wages of their employees will be, THEN THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAW!!!

I thought that was common knowledge. It's kind of like saying Christmas is in December. You could say it without having to cite it. I can understand now why people may not realize that the NCAA is walking on egg shells.

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/wage-fixing-and-no-poaching-agreements-66963/

https://www.justice.gov/atr/file/903511/download

[xubrew]

I forgot about this because it was a little before my time, but in the 1990s the NCAA tried to make a rule that put a maximum dollar amount on how much head coaches could make. The coaches took it to court, and it was pretty much thrown out on that same day because it constituted price fixing, or wage fixing, or whatever you prefer to call it.

If something similar lands in court in regards to the players, there is no reason to think the ruling will be any different. And remember, courts have ruled that athletes are employees.

Like I said, I think we are very far past talking about the philosophical reasons as to whether or not athletes should be paid. The conversation now needs to be how can the NCAA keep from getting completely blown apart and basically being told that their amateurism rules are illegal.

[XUGRAD80]

At this point I don’t think that you can consider the question about the student athlete being an employee as settled law. It’s likely that the question will go all the way to the Supreme Court before it is sett Ltd one way or another.

[xubrew]

At this point I don’t think that you can consider the question about the student athlete being an employee as settled law. It’s likely that the question will go all the way to the Supreme Court before it is sett Ltd one way or another.

True. Now having said that, the NCAA needs to do a much better job of formulating a legal argument than what they’ve been doing, which is basically saying “No, they’re not employees.”

[waggy]

Well, no, they are not employees. It's an at-will relationship. No one is forcing the students to play. There are many professional opportunities in the real world if they'd rather do that.

[xukeith]

Well, no, they are not employees. It's an at-will relationship. No one is forcing the students to play. There are many professional opportunities in the real world if they'd rather do that.

Lawsuits galore once athletes get compensation. Title IX will be used greatly for every athlete to get same or more compensation.

[xubrew]

Well, no, they are not employees. It's an at-will relationship. No one is forcing the students to play. There are many professional opportunities in the real world if they'd rather do that.

Virtually anyone who works without a contract is an at-will employee, and nearly everyone who is employed can seek out opportunities to work elsewhere.

If the NCAA just keeps telling themselves that student athletes are not employees and just ignores things like this, then I think they are in big trouble. The problem is that I think that’s exactly what the NCAA will do. .

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/02/02/nlrb-general-counsel-says-private-college-football-players-are-employees

[xubrew]

Similar legislation has now been proposed in South Carolina. This would actually give more to the players than the California bill would.

https://amp.thestate.com/news/politics-government/article235015452.html

[Xuperman]

This is a far too complex issue for me and I probably shouldn’t even post on this thread but wouldn’t eliminating “one and dones” and NFL age requirements solve most of the problem? AND I don’t understand why the NCAA has struggled in making a bulletproof legal case against paying players. The monetary value of a scholarship has to be considered “pay to play”. It’s the only way to evenly compensate all athletes that can earn one.

The HIGHEST PROFILE players wanting financial compensation for their name and image where the real battle is. The players name and likeness only has real value when coupled with the schools name and logo. I realize that the NCAA uses the amateur status to avoid compensating players but they’ve gotten away with that for far too long. Solution...what if schools were no longer permitted to profit that way? Wouldn’t that go a long way toward solving the problem? I think it would.

If that happened, players should be able to make money anyway they want BUT without using the school name or logo....so it cuts both ways. I mean if KyKy Tandy wants to try and market a plain white/blue jersey with his name and the #24, more power to him but I don’t think there would be much interest without XAVIER on the front.

[scoscox]

Schools already pay players above the table. It’s called a monthly stipend. Kids get housed, clothed, fed, paid, and educated for free for four years by their universities. I’m very unsympathetic to the idea any athletes are “exploited”. I think messing with this gravy train would be disastrous for student athletes in every sport. I think most athletes understand that. It’s an outspoken few who disagree. I don’t blame them for that, but I think the alternative would be worse for them. There’s a reason players aren’t leaving en masse to play in the g league. What they offer you in the ncaa is infinitely more valuable at every level than getting paid 40,000 a year to play lower level professional basketball

[xubrew]

Schools already pay players above the table. It’s called a monthly stipend. Kids get housed, clothed, fed, paid, and educated for free for four years by their universities. I’m very unsympathetic to the idea any athletes are “exploited”. I think messing with this gravy train would be disastrous for student athletes in every sport. I think most athletes understand that. It’s an outspoken few who disagree. I don’t blame them for that, but I think the alternative would be worse for them. There’s a reason players aren’t leaving en masse to play in the g league. What they offer you in the ncaa is infinitely more valuable at every level than getting paid 40,000 a year to play lower level professional basketball

I agree with most of these sentiments. Hearing people whine about how college athletes were basically living in sweatshop like conditions and were barely able to get by always struck me the same way nails on a chalkboard do. The reality is that being a college athlete, especially a div1 athlete, is a pretty sweet gig. It's still tons harder than what most people realize, but it's certainly got its perks.

The problem is this, though. The NCAA has been making a similar argument, and every time they've done it, they've lost. My frustration with the NCAA isn't so much that I think they're exploiting people. I think they're an example of hubris run amok. I think they're too dumb to see how much their structure is being threatened, and are not only don't know what to do about it, but have convinced themselves that there is no need to really do anything.

If what you're saying isn't working, then you need to change what you're saying. The NCAA isn't doing that.

Are student-athletes employees?? The NCAA is saying they're not. They need to do more than just say that. They also need to strongly consider what the other side is arguing, and look at cases in which the other side has made arguments that have won. Is work or service being performed?? and is the work or service benefiting the person who is exerting control over it?? That's basically the standard for employment. That's a lot of gray area, but it seems as though whenever someone tries to argue that college athletes are employees, they win. That's a problem. Simply saying that you don't feel that the are athletes doesn't solve the problem. Saying that they get all this great stuff also doesn't solve the problem, even though they're not wrong. Saying that they don't have to play college sports is true (at least to a point), but it's also irrelevant. No employee is forced to work at their current job, but that's not a disqualifier from them being able to sue their employer and win.

So, some of the things the NCAA could be doing, but aren't, is showing how athletics is an extension of education. Show how that in looking at the preferred qualifications of almost any entry level job that student-athletes get those experiences from playing college sports. Point out that student-athletes must be academically eligible to compete regardless of how good at their sport they are, and that being eligible requires them to be in good academic standing and that they progress toward a degree. THE IDIOTS AT THE NCAA DIDN'T EVEN DO THAT!! Then again, the comeback to that would be "well, how would paying them make it any less academic?" but at least the NCAA could demonstrate that athletics are tied in with academics.

It looks to me that the NCAA has decided to fight to the death on this hill of amateurism. I question whether or not it is winnable. I question further whether or not the NCAA is capable of winning it even if it is winnable. They don't exactly strike me as the best and brightest, and the fact that no one really likes them will make it even more difficult. If you've picked your hill to die on, and you're not capable of defending it, then you're pretty much already dead. The more and more I see the NCAA making the same arguments that never seem to work and not doing ANYTHING to either build a stronger case, or proactively get ahead of it and try to make concessions that would keep them from getting taken to court in the first place, the more and more I think that they're ultimately doomed. Saying athletes don't have to play won't work. Pointing out all the nice stuff that they already get won't work. Saying that amateurism is vital won't work. They need to try something else!

Also, this will keep getting worse. California has legislation in regards to names, images, and likenesses. South Carolina is proposing legislation that allows schools to pay players up to $5000 a year on top of their scholarship and cost of living, and on top of having the rights to their NIL. What's the next state going to do? In order to remain competitive, are they going to allow schools to pay up to $10k? Are they going to make it legal for schools to offer incentives? Is the NCAA even THINKING about any of that?? (I'm pretty sure I know the answer to that. They aren't.)

[scoscox]

I mean what are they supposed to do? If those states want to do that there’s nothing the ncaa can do to stop them. If it passes they’ll likely ban them from competition which is why I think it’s unlikely they pass unless those states are really intent on sticking it to all the universities in their state

[xubrew]

I mean what are they supposed to do? If those states want to do that there’s nothing the ncaa can do to stop them. If it passes they’ll likely ban them from competition which is why I think it’s unlikely they pass unless those states are really intent on sticking it to all the universities in their state

Not likely to pass?? California has basically already passed it. It was a near unanimous vote and it's just waiting to be signed by the governor. If those schools are banned from competition then I'm sure they'll sue the NCAA on the grounds that the NCAA is violating anti-trust laws, and that the rules they broke were illegal in the first place. Based on how those cases have been going over the past few years I'm way less than confident that the NCAA will win.

[Xavgrad08]

Article on why The NCAA could not ban the California schools if this passes.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marcedelman/2019/06/25/ncaa-cant-legally-ban-california-schools-for-allowing-athletes-to-profit-from-their-names-images-and-likenesses/#ea83ae5273f8

[xubrew]

Article on why The NCAA could not ban the California schools if this passes.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marcedelman/2019/06/25/ncaa-cant-legally-ban-california-schools-for-allowing-athletes-to-profit-from-their-names-images-and-likenesses/#ea83ae5273f8

I think the NCAA will still try it. If they do they’ll get sued, and will almost assuredly lose, but they won’t be smart enough to realize that.

[Final4]

I think the NCAA will still try it. If they do they’ll get sued, and will almost assuredly lose, but they won’t be smart enough to realize that.

And isn't the operative word(s) in the Forbes article the following: California "member" schools? Is there something that precludes the NCAA from telling USC that if you no longer intend to comply with our rules and regulations you can no longer (by choice) be a "member" of our association?

[xubrew]

If the NCAA's rules and regulations are deemed to be in violation of anti-trust laws, then that would preclude them from being able to kick a school out for not following them. But, they may try it anyway, and WOW will that be a shit show!!

[XUGRAD80]

If the NCAA's rules and regulations are deemed to be in violation of anti-trust laws, then that would preclude them from being able to kick a school out for not following them. But, they may try it anyway, and WOW will that be a shit show!!

Big IF there....

IF the NFL, Major League Baseball, and the NBA are not deemed to be in violation of anti-trust laws, then I think it’s goi g to be hard to get the NCAA to be held to them. Especially based on the existence of other such groups such as the NJCAA and NAIA, not to mention the individual conferences and how they operate within the NCAA guidelines, but still being able to have their own rules and regulations.

Pretty sure it ends up going through the courts and ultimately the Supreme Court before their is any settlement. Could be years.

[xubrew]

Big IF there....

IF the NFL, Major League Baseball, and the NBA are not deemed to be in violation of anti-trust laws, then I think it’s goi g to be hard to get the NCAA to be held to them. Especially based on the existence of other such groups such as the NJCAA and NAIA, not to mention the individual conferences and how they operate within the NCAA guidelines, but still being able to have their own rules and regulations.

Pretty sure it ends up going through the courts and ultimately the Supreme Court before their is any settlement. Could be years.

Haven't they all been found to be in violation of it at one time or another?? I know it was a while ago, but MLB had the reserve clause struck down, and then there was another point to where the owners had to pay hundreds of millions in damages for the collusion scandal.

I think another aspect of it is that all of those leagues have players unions, and the terms in which they play under are negotiated and agreed upon. The NCAA has nothing that even remotely resembles that.

At the end of the day, I guess my biggest concern is this. I know some people who are employment rights attorneys who are either really pushing this or really wanting to get in on this. I also know the NCAA. There is no question in my mind as to which of those two groups I think is smarter and more capable. Those who are attacking the NCAA rules have a point. If they didn't, then there wouldn't be so much noise surrounding it. They have such a good point that I wonder if the NCAA can even win in the long run. I think they'd be much better off trying to reach some sort of agreement even if it means making concessions that the NCAA doesn't want to make. If they don't, then they may be told that all of their amateurism rules are illegal, and they'll lose control of everything.

[Final4]

If they don't, then they may be told that all of their amateurism rules are illegal, and they'll lose control of everything.

This is where it just completely comes off the rails for me. Who do they lose control to? Individual schools? At the end of the day if there is competition between and among schools there most assuredly will be some organization that "directs" said competition. Quite simply, are there any other options?

[scoscox]

Didn't the NCAA just win a lawsuit that said that players weren't employees? I think it was in california.

[xubrew]

This is where it just completely comes off the rails for me. Who do they lose control to? Individual schools? At the end of the day if there is competition between and among schools there most assuredly will be some organization that "directs" said competition. Quite simply, are there any other options?

The end result is that the courts will rule that college athletes are employees, and that they have the right to be paid their fair market value, and that schools are not allowed to collectively fix how much they are allowed to be paid. That is ultimately what they are gunning for. Schools won't be required to pay athletes, but they will be permitted to if they choose to.

That is what the other side is gunning for, and they have people that are both smart and aggressive that are leading that charge. It would be VERY stupid to just ignore them and assume that they don't have a case, because they absolutely do. Even if the NCAA thinks they can win (which I guess is possible, but probably not easy), to just passively dismiss something this threatening as an impossibility is both stupid and irresponsible.

[muskiefan82]

Couldn't the NCAA simply change the arrangement to a contracted employee? The "athlete" in exchange for tuition, room, board, a stipend, etc. agrees to play, practice, allow the school to use likeness, etc. until eligibility is exhausted or something similar?

[xubrew]

Didn't the NCAA just win a lawsuit that said that players weren't employees? I think it was in california.

Yes.

Well, sort of.

If it's the case I'm thinking of, a guy from USC sued the Pac Twelve and the NCAA and the court ruled that he was not an employee because neither the Pac 12 or NCAA could hire or fire him, which is correct.

The potential problem is that they did not rule that he wasn't an employee OF USC. It's my understanding that the argument that is being pushed forward are that student-athletes are the employees of their schools.

Just a month before that, the NCAA lost a case that resulted in them having to pay out $208 million to former players due to the use of their NILs.

[xubrew]

Couldn't the NCAA simply change the arrangement to a contracted employee? The "athlete" in exchange for tuition, room, board, a stipend, etc. agrees to play, practice, allow the school to use likeness, etc. until eligibility is exhausted or something similar?

They could try. I think this it would be better than what they're doing now. It would require that they acknowledge that athletes are contracted employees, and it would entitle athletes to employee rights, but it would probably make the ground that they're standing on a little bit more stable.

EDIT: I'm sure there is someone that knows more about this than I do. I don't know if doing what you suggested would entirely solve the problem of wage fixing. Having said that, how does Minor League baseball do it?? I'm under the impression that outside of their signing bonus, they all pretty much sign a standard contract. I THINK the difference is that the terms are still negotiated through the players union, whereas in the NCAA they wouldn't be, but I'm not sure.

But I definitely think they should look into something like that.

I really don't want the top to get so big that it completely crushes everything else. I think that would be bad for college sports for more reasons than I want to get into right now. My fear is that it's a possibility, and I don't have a whole lot of faith in the NCAA to make good critical decisions in general, so I'm a little worried.

[scoscox]

Yes.

Well, sort of.

If it's the case I'm thinking of, a guy from USC sued the Pac Twelve and the NCAA and the court ruled that he was not an employee because neither the Pac 12 or NCAA could hire or fire him, which is correct.

The potential problem is that they did not rule that he wasn't an employee OF USC. It's my understanding that the argument that is being pushed forward are that student-athletes are the employees of their schools.

Just a month before that, the NCAA lost a case that resulted in them having to pay out $208 million to former players due to the use of their NILs.

doesn't that support the idea that they're not employees though if the NCAA isn't permitted to use their NILs?

and why would they be employees of the schools if they're not employees of the NCAA or PAC-12?

[xubrew]

doesn't that support the idea that they're not employees though if the NCAA isn't permitted to use their NILs?

and why would they be employees of the schools if they're not employees of the NCAA or PAC-12?

I don't think he sued them specifically over the use of his NIL. I think he sued them for payment in general. It was a pretty weak case. Had he sued USC, it may have had a little more teeth.

Travis Steele does not work for the NCAA or the Big East. If he were to sue the NCAA demanding payment (not that he ever would), he'd lose spectacularly. The work he is performing, the organization that has control over him and the work he is performing, and the organization benefiting from the work being performed is not the NCAA or the Big East, so you cannot say that he is an employee of either organization. Same with the kid from USC.

[xubrew]

Look, at the end of the day I'm just not all that confident in the NCAA's position, and even less confident in their ability to defend their position. I'm actually kind of shocked at how many people seem so unconcerned about this. I mean seriously! What has the NCAA EVER done to make everyone think that there is nothing to be worried about?? People on here blast the NCAA for being stupid and inept all the time. What makes those people suddenly think that the NCAA is going to get this right?

[scoscox]

Seeing as there's virtually nothing i can do to effect the outcome one way or the other, I don't get too worked up about it.

[scoscox]

Travis Steele does not work for the NCAA or the Big East. If he were to sue the NCAA demanding payment (not that he ever would), he'd lose spectacularly. The work he is performing, the organization that has control over him and the work he is performing, and the organization benefiting from the work being performed is not the NCAA or the Big East, so you cannot say that he is an employee of either organization. Same with the kid from USC.

Not exactly, first Travis is undoubtedly an employee of Xavier, but beyond that it can certainly be argued that his work benefits the ncaa and the big east. xavier plays in the big east tournament annually and the ncaa tournament almost annually. xavier brings in money for both of those organizations.

the same argument could be made for the players. they play on national television wearing the big east and ncaa logos and those media deals make both orgs money. the branding alone is probably pretty significant. there are plenty of good arguments there.

[xubrew]

Not exactly, first Travis is undoubtedly an employee of Xavier, but beyond that it can certainly be argued that his work benefits the ncaa and the big east. xavier plays in the big east tournament annually and the ncaa tournament almost annually. xavier brings in money for both of those organizations.

the same argument could be made for the players

Well, he tried to make that argument, and he lost. So, I guess that's something to feel a little better about.

[Final4]

The end result is that the courts will rule that college athletes are employees, and that they have the right to be paid their fair market value, and that schools are not allowed to collectively fix how much they are allowed to be paid. That is ultimately what they are gunning for. Schools won't be required to pay athletes, but they will be permitted to if they choose to.

That is what the other side is gunning for, and they have people that are both smart and aggressive that are leading that charge. It would be VERY stupid to just ignore them and assume that they don't have a case, because they absolutely do. Even if the NCAA thinks they can win (which I guess is possible, but probably not easy), to just passively dismiss something this threatening as an impossibility is both stupid and irresponsible.

Well put me in the group with the stupid and irresponsible. I don't think this ever happens. I think there are adults in the room who are alot smarter than me who recognize that permitting schools to pay players (with each school determining to what extent they participate) erodes competitive balance and ultimately destroys college athletics. And as I asked earlier, at that point who is the winner?

[xubrew]

Well put me in the group with the stupid and irresponsible. I don't think this ever happens. I think there are adults in the room who are alot smarter than me who recognize that permitting schools to pay players (with each school determining to what extent they participate) erodes competitive balance and ultimately destroys college athletics. And as I asked earlier, at that point who is the winner?

And a very plausible response from the courts to that is "Well, the NCAA is in violation of anti-trust laws, so tough shit!"

They won't word it quite like that, but it's very possible that will be their ruling. It's not the job of the courts to make sure the NCAA maintains a competitive balance.

[scoscox]

Well, he tried to make that argument, and he lost. So, I guess that's something to feel a little better about.

Agreed. Maybe it's more compelling to say they're direct employees of the school rather than the conference and NCAA, which is likely, but it's atleast encouraging that he lost that case.

[Final4]

And a very plausible response from the courts to that is "Well, the NCAA is in violation of anti-trust laws, so tough shit!"

They won't word it quite like that, but it's very possible that will be their ruling.

And that very well may be the response. But I guess my point is, then what? What emerges from the ashes? A new association of member schools with a charter that has language more iron clad, with rules and regulations, that sponsors national championships? Sorta like, say, the NCAA?

[xubrew]

And that very well may be the response. But I guess my point is, then what? What emerges from the ashes? A new association of member schools with a charter that has language more iron clad, with rules and regulations, that sponsors national championships? Sorta like, say, the NCAA?

Who knows??

To the general fan, it may not look all that different. The big programs will continue to get the big players, and will now be able to entice them with endorsement deals from apparel companies, and if what South Carolina has proposed goes through they'd be able to pay them directly on top of that. But, the big time programs already get all the big players right now anyway. So when taking a macro look at competitive balance, the P5 and major programs would still be the major programs, and the one bid leagues would still be the one bid leagues.

[sirthought]

I think if this were to sway the requirements of universities paying scholarship students for basketball, then you'd have to be looking at every scholarship journalist that writes for the newspaper or student run TV station, every musician that's playing university concerts, or every scientist that's doing work on behalf of a research project.

All of that collective training and controlled life experience would become too expensive and we'll have to end the notion of public education.

[xubrew]

I think if this were to sway the requirements of universities paying scholarship students for basketball, then you'd have to be looking at every scholarship journalist that writes for the newspaper or student run TV station, every musician that's playing university concerts, or every scientist that's doing work on behalf of a research project.

All of that collective training and controlled life experience would become too expensive and we'll have to end the notion of public education.

At most of the schools I've been at, these are all paid positions. Granted, they're not paid as much as a key player in a revenue sport at a big time program would likely be paid, but the marching band and pep bands are paid for each performance. The people who work at the TV and radio stations, and those who work for the university newspaper are also all paid something. At the very least, there is no agreed upon rule amongst universities to not pay them. They can if they want to. I'm sure not all schools pay those positions, but a lot of them do. That's actually one of the main arguments people who are in favor of paying college players are making.

[sirthought]

As a person who was a college journalist, musician, and research lab tech, I got nadda.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

[xubrew]

As a person who was a college journalist, musician, and research lab tech, I got nadda.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

Sounds like you had the same fair market value as me.

[waggy]

Virtually anyone who works without a contract is an at-will employee, and nearly everyone who is employed can seek out opportunities to work elsewhere.

If the NCAA just keeps telling themselves that student athletes are not employees and just ignores things like this, then I think they are in big trouble. The problem is that I think that’s exactly what the NCAA will do. .

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/02/02/nlrb-general-counsel-says-private-college-football-players-are-employees

Yeah the NLRB's function isn't to decide what or who is an employee. Their role is to defend actual employees.

[xubrew]

Yeah the NLRB's function isn't to decide what or who is an employee. Their role is to defend actual employees.

Yeah, and they have to know who is and isn't an employee in order to do that. They've stated that they are committed to protecting college athletes' employee rights under the labor laws.

The more you try to point out that the NCAA isn't in any real trouble, the more trouble I start to think they may be in.

[waggy]

Yeah, and they have to know who is and isn't an employee in order to do that. They've stated that they are committed to protecting college athletes' employee rights under the labor laws.

The more you try to point out that the NCAA isn't in any real trouble, the more trouble I start to think they may be in.


They're not employees. Good grief. The NLRB doesn't get to define what an employee is. Well I guess they can, but they only have power with regards to actual employees. They can call lab rats employees too, but it would just be another waste of taxpayer dollars.

[xubrew]

They're not employees. Good grief. The NLRB doesn't get to define what an employee is. Well I guess they can, but they only have power with regards to actual employees. They can call lab rats employees too, but it would just be another waste of taxpayer dollars.

Can you explain why they're not employees?? Maybe you can. If so, then I'll gladly tip my hat to you.

You're probably going to see a lot of arguments being made that they are employees because they perform work, they do so under the control of someone else, and the work they perform benefits the people/organization that controls them. An argument can be made that they're not, but is it good enough to win and is the NCAA smart enough to make it?? Earlier you mentioned that no one is forcing them to play. That doesn't mean they don't legally fit the definition of an employee. It just means that they aren't incarcerated.

Can you explain why the NLRB has stated that they are committed to protecting the employee rights of student-athletes if it's not their decision to make in the first place?? You say they don't get to decide. Well, in the case of college athletes they apparently did.

[scoscox]

Can you explain why they're not employees?? Maybe you can. If so, then I'll gladly tip my hat to you.

You're probably going to see a lot of arguments being made that they are employees because they perform work, they do so under the control of someone else, and the work they perform benefits the people/organization that controls them. An argument can be made that they're not, but is it good enough to win and is the NCAA smart enough to make it?? Earlier you mentioned that no one is forcing them to play. That doesn't mean they don't legally fit the definition of an employee. It just means that they aren't incarcerated.

Can you explain why the NLRB has stated that they are committed to protecting the employee rights of student-athletes if it's not their decision to make in the first place?? You say they don't get to decide. Well, in the case of college athletes they apparently did.

wouldn't the argument simply be that they're students first when enrolled at the university and the athletics merely constitute an extra-curricular? i don't think that'd be a difficult argument

[STL_XUfan]

As a person who was a college journalist, musician, and research lab tech, I got nadda.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

But you were free to freelance and book gigs without your college interfering.

[xubrew]

wouldn't the argument simply be that they're students first when enrolled at the university and the athletics merely constitute an extra-curricular? i don't think that'd be a difficult argument

I don’t think it’s quite that easy because being a student doesn’t necessarily mean they’re not employees. Student workers are employees. Grad assistants are oftentimes employees. RAs and oftentimes those in Student government are also paid.

[scoscox]

I don’t think it’s quite that easy because being a student doesn’t necessarily mean they’re not employees. Student workers are employees. Grad assistants are oftentimes employees. RAs and oftentimes those in Student government are also paid.

right, but the athletes are not paid, so they wouldn't be employees.

[XUGRAD80]

Their status as employees or as non-employees depends on what lawyer you talk to and what court decision you want to quote. It will all be decided by the Supreme Court sometime in the future,

[xubrew]

right, but the athletes are not paid, so they wouldn't be employees.

Well that’s the whole debate. Will the courts rule that they can/should be paid? Some would say that they already are. Others would say that the NCAA amateurism rules violate anti-trust laws. The NCAA is saying that they’re not employees at all, but I’m not all that sold that they’re going to be able to convince the right people of that.

[GIMMFD]

right, but the athletes are not paid, so they wouldn't be employees.

This isn't a combative question or anything like that, genuinely curious, but would the stipends that athlete's receive (money for food on away trips, etc.) count as payment, so could that technically make them employees?

[muskiefan82]

The NCAA would be much better served by bypassing the employee argument and having student athletes enter into a contract agreement for four years. Just like when you hire a contractor. They aren't your employees. They work for you, but under the rules set forth in the contract. Just get the contract language right and this all goes away.

[scoscox]

This isn't a combative question or anything like that, genuinely curious, but would the stipends that athlete's receive (money for food on away trips, etc.) count as payment, so could that technically make them employees?

I would assume thats one of the stronger arguments for them being employees. I think it’s usually cited as a sort of financial aid program/part of the scholarship and that’s how they get around it

[waggy]

Ultimately schools need to be educators first. Students should be there for preparation for the future, not to earn money. That comes later, hopefully after graduation. But when you have programs that admit people that wouldn't normally be admitted because they are talented athletically, or you have schools with bogus classes for athletes, it's not a good look at all.

[waggy]

The NCAA would be much better served by bypassing the employee argument and having student athletes enter into a contract agreement for four years. Just like when you hire a contractor. They aren't your employees. They work for you, but under the rules set forth in the contract. Just get the contract language right and this all goes away.

Yup. I would only add that I think such contracts would need to be generated by schools individually... Otherwise you run the risk of anti-trust cries.

[muskiefan82]

Sure. The value of the degree is different at each school based on tuition rates, so the contract should be specific to each school as well

[sirthought]

The NCAA would be much better served by bypassing the employee argument and having student athletes enter into a contract agreement for four years. Just like when you hire a contractor. They aren't your employees. They work for you, but under the rules set forth in the contract. Just get the contract language right and this all goes away.

This would be a disaster. Just look at all the businesses now trying to say people in the gig economy aren't employees. It's falling apart for them little by little. GM is suffering a strike because they won't move temp workers to full time out of fear they'll join a union.

[muskiefan82]

Oh, there will likely be a union someday, but the college athlete is truly temporary. The GM workers aren't really temporary. GM just treats them that way to avoid other issues which will likely be found to be illegal

[xubrew]

The NCAA would be much better served by bypassing the employee argument and having student athletes enter into a contract agreement for four years. Just like when you hire a contractor. They aren't your employees. They work for you, but under the rules set forth in the contract. Just get the contract language right and this all goes away.

This is a very plausible end result to all of this. Players enter into a contract with the schools with the schools being able offer far more in the contract than what they currently can with the scholarship.


This would be a disaster. Just look at all the businesses now trying to say people in the gig economy aren't employees. It's falling apart for them little by little. GM is suffering a strike because they won't move temp workers to full time out of fear they'll join a union.

Yeah, probably. I have almost no confidence that this does not end in some sort of a disaster.

[scoscox]

Oh, there will likely be a union someday, but the college athlete is truly temporary. The GM workers aren't really temporary. GM just treats them that way to avoid other issues which will likely be found to be illegal

It amazes me and is sort of disheartening to see the uaw strikes. You’d think it would be obvious this is the very reason all the jobs in the industry have been lost offshore. I realize this is off topic but its just maddening.

[muskiefan82]

It amazes me and is sort of disheartening to see the uaw strikes. You’d think it would be obvious this is the very reason all the jobs in the industry have been lost offshore. I realize this is off topic but its just maddening.

it's an interesting dilemma if you are outside of it. The fault lies with both management and the union. There is rarely any actual review of the impact of whatever is being bargained on the long term stability of the industry. Union asks, management says no, union strikes, management folds and gives concessions, concessions cause loss of profit, management cuts employees or benefits, etc., union complains, management says too bad, union strikes, management folds and gives concessions, and on and on it goes until the entire business goes under and no one has jobs or all of the jobs are moved overseas and the union employees are out of work. The union can't just take and take and management has to know when to say no and mean it and stick to it even if it means a strike. If BOTH entities really entered into a discussion that focused on the overall health of the business while also doing the best for the employees, it would work. Instead, it's more like Congress and this is what happens.

[scoscox]

yes. it's a terrible cycle that needs to be stopped and it's really disheartening to see. it is, in a nutshell, the downfall of the rust belt.

[noteggs]

I think it’s usually cited as a sort of financial aid program/part of the scholarship and that’s how they get around it

You are correct. Stipends are not wages and do not have FICA withdrawn. Therefore they can be used by interns or student athletes to offset expenses.

Which brings me to a sore subject. If student athletes can receive stipends, why can’t students who are doing their student teaching rotation be eligible? Sounds like they have similar burdens and time constraints as student athletes and are still financially responsible for their tuition. Asking for a friend’s daughter who’s going through this right now.

[scoscox]

You are correct. Stipends are not wages and do not have FICA withdrawn. Therefore they can be used by interns or student athletes to offset expenses.

Which brings me to a sore subject. If student athletes can receive stipends, why can’t students who are doing their student teaching rotation be eligible? Sounds like they have similar burdens and time constraints as student athletes and are still financially responsible for their tuition. Asking for a friend’s daughter who’s going through this right now.

just a guess here but i'm thinking it probably has something to do with the difference in how the school values each position respectively

[xubrew]

You are correct. Stipends are not wages and do not have FICA withdrawn. Therefore they can be used by interns or student athletes to offset expenses.

Which brings me to a sore subject. If student athletes can receive stipends, why can’t students who are doing their student teaching rotation be eligible? Sounds like they have similar burdens and time constraints as student athletes and are still financially responsible for their tuition. Asking for a friend’s daughter who’s going through this right now.

I'm guessing it's an institutional decision. I'm not aware of any rules that would prevent a university from paying a student teacher if they chose to. Granted, I don't know of any schools that do pay student teachers, but I don't think there is anything from stopping a school that decides they want to pay them from doing it.

[xubrew]

I don't THINK this one will pass. It seems to me that allowing schools to pay players if they choose to do so is within the limits of the law, but dictating how much schools have to pay them is not. But who knows?? New York wants to make it the law that student-athletes get a percentage of the revenue that athletics makes. I'm fairly certain that if this passes Fordham will still suck, though.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2854265-new-york-senator-kevin-parker-proposes-bill-to-pay-college-athletes

Whether it passes or not almost doesn't matter. The issue is that one state after another is proposing legislation to pay college athletes, and it seems as though each new proposal plans to provide more for the athletes than the one that came before it. By the time this is over, California only offering athletes the right to profit of their NILs may seem like almost nothing.

Yet, the NCAA will probably just continue to sit there, say that they aren't employees and that amateurism is vital, and simply do nothing because they don't think there is anything to be worried about.

[xubrew]

Okay.....

Well, not okay.....

This is why I think the NCAA is going to get absolutely creamed. Three members of the Board of Governors just released this statement. It says nothing more than that they don't like the law, and that it creates a competitive imbalance. They seem to think that formulating an actual legal argument is not necessary. They merely need to say that they don't like it and that they feel it messes things up for them.

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/story/2019-09-20/student-athletes-marketing-themselves-would-hurt-college-sports

That's not good enough. That's not even close. They better have A LOT more than that. The problem is that I'm not sure that they do, nor am I sure that they even realize just how much more they need.

[Drew]

The NCAA is effectively a union for the colleges. Until the players have an equivalent things will always be lopsided, imo.

[waggy]

Commentary: Why NCAA athletes marketing themselves would hurt college sports.


Not sure the writers opinion agrees with yours Brew?

[xubrew]

Commentary: Why NCAA athletes marketing themselves would hurt college sports.


Not sure the writers opinion agrees with yours Brew?


What the hell are you talking about??

I DO think it will hurt college sports. That's why I'm concerned. What's disturbing is that the writers are three members of the NCAA Board of Governors, and their opinions are INCREDIBLY weak. They say nothing more than they don't like the law and that it will mess things up for the NCAA if it is passed. As if messing things up for the NCAA is somehow a mitigating thing for the governor and the courts to consider. They say that as if that is somehow relevant enough to keep it from happening. If that's all the NCAA's leadership has to say about it, then they are completely fucked.

[xubrew]

And then this gem came out today...

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/ncaa-prez-calls-name-image-and-likeness-rights-an-existential-threat-to-college-sports/

Quotes from Emmert...


Emmert on Tuesday, while speaking to a group of Division I athletic directors, called the current debate over name, image and likeness rights the "single biggest issue" in his almost-decade on the job.

and...


This is a "huge, huge issue. As big a one as we've seen in modern times," Emmert said

But then.....


"My personal view is folks in general think that every student-athlete is going to be making hundreds of thousands of dollars," Emmert told CBS Sports. "One or two will be making some significant amount of money. Nobody else will."

The first two statements are arguably true.

The third statement is either a flat out lie, or it's grossly misinformed. Either way, it does not instill a lot of confidence that the NCAA is going to get this right.

Let's pretend that Emmert actually believes the third statement is true. Can he explain why this "huge huge issue" that is the biggest in modern times is so big when it is really only going to impact "one or two people" who will be making significant money??

The more they talk, the more I'm starting to believe that they are ultimately going to get crushed.

[waggy]

I will agree that the NCAA is doing a poor job of defining it's position. But I think his last statement is pretty close to true. Really not many athletic departments are profitable. They may have big budgets, but that is different than profitability. The us government has a giant budget, and yet is always broke.

[scoscox]

the only thing that i think is a problem for the ncaa is coaching salaries. if they could reign in some of the exorbitant coaches' salaries out there, there'd be a lot less controversy imo. obviously that's unlikely, but i think it'd go a long way

[xubrew]

the only thing that i think is a problem for the ncaa is coaching salaries. if they could reign in some of the exorbitant coaches' salaries out there, there'd be a lot less controversy imo. obviously that's unlikely, but i think it'd go a long way

They tried in the early 1990s. They wanted to put a cap on how much coaches could make. The coaches took it to court and won on the grounds that what the NCAA was trying to do constituted wage fixing. Expect to see that ruling referenced in the near future if/when the issue of allowing college players access to the free market lands in court.

[xubrew]

I will agree that the NCAA is doing a poor job of defining it's position. But I think his last statement is pretty close to true. Really not many athletic departments are profitable. They may have big budgets, but that is different than profitability. The us government has a giant budget, and yet is always broke.

Giving players the rights to their NILs will not cost the athletic departments or schools any additional money. If only one or two people are able to make money off of their NILs, then what's the problem?? Why would they even care about the law in California, much less call it the biggest issue of modern times, if it was only going to really effect one or two people?

[waggy]

Giving players the rights to their NILs will not cost the athletic departments or schools any additional money. If only one or two people are able to make money off of their NILs, then what's the problem?? Why would they even care about the law in California, much less call it the biggest issue of modern times, if it was only going to really effect one or two people?

If you're really not smart enough to understand maybe you stay off the subject. Or you could drop the word crushed a few more times. Drama queen.

[xubrew]

If you're really not smart enough to understand maybe you stay off the subject. Or you could drop the word crushed a few more times. Drama queen.

Yeah, don't you just hate when people bring things into a conversation that are entirely wrong or irrelevant, and that they obviously don't understand??

Yunno, I think that's actually one of the NCAA's biggest problems.

[scoscox]

They tried in the early 1990s. They wanted to put a cap on how much coaches could make. The coaches took it to court and won on the grounds that what the NCAA was trying to do constituted wage fixing. Expect to see that ruling referenced in the near future if/when the issue of allowing college players access to the free market lands in court.

wow that's interesting. i didn't know that.

[noteggs]

https://www.ajc.com/blog/mark-bradley/the-ncaa-hits-tech-hard-can-pastner-survive/f5K7xvwCBV8acThXnrOgJL/

Is this a message to Kansas, Louisville or the State of California?

[xubrew]

https://www.ajc.com/blog/mark-bradley/the-ncaa-hits-tech-hard-can-pastner-survive/f5K7xvwCBV8acThXnrOgJL/

Is this a message to Kansas, Louisville or the State of California?

Two things the NCAA seems to strongly oppose are paying players and strippers.

[noteggs]

Two things the NCAA seems to strongly oppose are paying players and strippers.

Ok that’s funny! What sucks for GT is that the $300 in club money wasn’t enough for a commit.

[xubrew]

Ok that’s funny! What sucks for GT is that the $300 in club money wasn’t enough for a commit.

Yeah, they cheated and they still suck!

I personally don't like that the postseason ban was implemented for this year. In my opinion any postseason ban that comes down after July 1 should go into effect the next year. In other words, I think it's more fair to the current players to allow them to play in the ACC/NCAA/NIT Tournaments this year and then ban them next year if they decide the want to transfer. Two reasons: It's more fair to the players, and it's actually more punishing to the school because they can't just say that they'll take their ban now and not have it impact any future recruiting classes.

[muskiefan82]

Perhaps the ban should take effect the first year that the team is actually likely to get a bid. Imagine X was in trouble and they could have taken a ban last year. I think you jump at that chance when you aren't very good. It only hurts the team if they ARE really good. I say wait until the first time they are good enough to make it and THEN ban them. (Unless it is a Kansas or UK who is always likely to be good enough to make it)

[bobbiemcgee]

Gov signed the bill.

[muskiefan82]

Gov signed the bill.

And away we go........

[xubrew]

Add Florida to the list. They want to implement it next year...

https://www.si.com/college-football/2019/09/30/florida-state-representative-proposed-legislation-pay-student-athletes

[xudash]

Add Florida to the list. They want to implement it next year...

https://www.si.com/college-football/2019/09/30/florida-state-representative-proposed-legislation-pay-student-athletes

Apparently, states with palm trees are at the top of the list.

[xubrew]

Apparently, states with palm trees are at the top of the list.

..and right as you say that Pennsylvania jumps on board...

https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-football/growing-movement-pair-of-states-introduce-bills-regarding-image-likeness-for-college-athletes/

[surfxu]

So student athletes are going to end up going to whatever school has some booster that owns a huge car dealership and guarantees the kid(s) some 6 digit advertising campaign. "Hey kid... I'm Jeff Wyler, my wife was dogged by Bob Chuggings... come to uc and I'll sign you to a $250k/yr advertising campaign". This sounds like it's gonna be a mess.

[xubrew]

So student athletes are going to end up going to whatever school has some booster that owns a huge car dealership and guarantees the kid(s) some 6 digit advertising campaign. "Hey kid... I'm Jeff Wyler, my wife was dogged by Bob Chuggings... come to uc and I'll sign you to a $250k/yr advertising campaign". This sounds like it's gonna be a mess.

Yeah, probably. A lot of boosters who give tons of money to the school may start giving more and more of it to the players.

[xubrew]

and now Minnesota...

http://www.startribune.com/minnesota-legislator-nolan-west-working-on-bill-that-would-allow-state-college-athletes-to-seek-endorsement-deals/561868571/

I've yet to see the NCAA do anything that could actually be classified as productive. They've been stomping their feet. That's about it.

[XUGRAD80]

These new laws may well be the ruin of “college” sports because they could completely destroy the whole concept of competitive balance. Certain schools will have an even larger advantage over others than they do now.

All the NCAA can do at this point is try to enforce its current rules and wait until they are taken to court. At that point they have to hope that the courts rule in their favor.

[drudy23]

And they think it's corrupt now?

Forget enforcement, this blows the doors off of any guardrails that currently exist.

[scoscox]

So student athletes are going to end up going to whatever school has some booster that owns a huge car dealership and guarantees the kid(s) some 6 digit advertising campaign. "Hey kid... I'm Jeff Wyler, my wife was dogged by Bob Chuggings... come to uc and I'll sign you to a $250k/yr advertising campaign". This sounds like it's gonna be a mess.

yea it's gonna be ugly

[xudash]

So student athletes are going to end up going to whatever school has some booster that owns a huge car dealership and guarantees the kid(s) some 6 digit advertising campaign. "Hey kid... I'm Jeff Wyler, my wife was dogged by Bob Chuggings... come to uc and I'll sign you to a $250k/yr advertising campaign". This sounds like it's gonna be a mess.


If done on a guaranteed - - fixed agreement basis - - that assumes the ad agency for the client (Jeff Wyler, in your example) believes the kid will generate at a clip that will achieve the targeted ROI for the campaign, after covering:

1. The cost of the direct fees paid to the kid.

2. The development costs of the campaign incurred by the agency.

3. The management of the campaign by the agency, including tracking results / impacts from the campaign.

I have no doubt that Pandora's Box is going to open and open widely for this mess, and that some of it will turn out to be less than prima facie in packaged intent. But it isn't a foregone conclusion that most of these athletes will be substantially marketable. Logic would also suggest that the more marketable they are (i.e. pure star power), the more likely they're gone after one season of play when it comes to basketball players.

So, one year campaigns around a one-and-done?

[xubrew]

I can't help but think that this is a much bigger mess than what it needed to be.

It's frustrating to me that the NCAA seemed to not differentiate between it's own (misguided) philosophies and ideals, and the actual laws of the land. This has been snowballing ever since the O'Bannon case. Whenever anyone tried to suggest that it needed to be addressed, and that if they didn't make concessions things would blow up sooner or later, they did nothing. As recently as this summer they basically just brushed it off and said they weren't changing and that it wasn't a problem.

Well, it's a problem. If nothing else, at least the NCAA finally seems to collectively realize that. They're not giving any indications that they will be able to clean up the mess, but at least they know there is one.

So, here is where I am with it. Why not give it to them?? Even if you are totally against the idea of college athletes getting money because of whatever ideal you think it violates, at this point it just seems like the most practical thing to do. If the NCAA tries to fight this, they're not going to win. That should be obvious to everyone by now. So rather than take it to a place to where over a dozen states have their own NIL laws that are all different, why not come out and say that all student-athletes can make money off their names, images, and likenesses and then lay out what the parameters of that are??

If you want your own YouTube channel, go for it. If you play a country club sport and want to give golf or tennis lessons when you're not competing, go for it. (It's actually the non-revenue country club sports like golf, tennis, and even softball that could end up cleaning up more than what most people realize). And in basketball and football, if you have the opportunity for endorsement deals, then go for it.

One thing I would be for, and I don't think there would be a whole lot of pushback on this, is to set up some sort of royalties clearinghouse within the NCAA that would basically require anyone paying out and/or receiving endorsements to register with the clearing house and make sure they fall within certain parameters. The main goal here would be to keep rogue agents out. But, I don't think it's something that anyone on either side of the argument would have a problem with.

But the biggest thing is this is going to happen anyway. It's already happening. I understand that a lot of people feel this will completely shake the foundation of college athletics. While I think people are foolish if they don't believe this will change things, I also don't think it's anywhere near as cataclysmic as some of the doomsday people think. Take this for what you will, but in my estimation (and I'm not claiming that it's anything other than that), I think about 20%-25% are already receiving money or some sort of payment that they are not allowed to be receiving. I know the FBI hit some of the really big fish, but I think it filters down to even the one-bid leagues and teams. Now, some get more than others, but I think a lot more players than what people realize are getting something. So, does this end up changing things THAT much if the NCAA suddenly allows what so many players are already doing anyway?? Maybe not. Maybe it's not the worst thing in the world after all.

But, doing nothing and letting all the states make up their own rules and laws would be a disaster, and right now I fear that's where this may be going.

I'll push myself away from the table now. It's fun to talk about, but there isn't anything any of us can actually do about it. So...

[Drew]

I am a staunch believer in the free market and its positive affects in society. Except for monopolies. That is what the NCAA is. College athletics is a business that generates billions in revenue each year. NCAA controls the market and is effectively price fixing by forcing everyone to pay the same.

[xubrew]

I wonder if the NCAA is planning on sending a letter to the Capitol where they mention the possibility of banning all fifty states from NCAA Championship events...

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/27751454/congressman-propose-federal-legislation-paying-college-athletes

[SM#24]

The ESPN article above states "prohibits colleges in that state from punishing college athletes if they accept money in exchange for the use of their name, image or likeness." Can the NCAA or individual schools put forth rules that prohibit the athlete from specific endorsements or activities ?
Can an athlete endorse alcohol, a strip club, weed shop ?
What about a Nike school prohibiting an athlete from endorsing adidas ?

[XUGRAD80]

The ESPN article above states "prohibits colleges in that state from punishing college athletes if they accept money in exchange for the use of their name, image or likeness." Can the NCAA or individual schools put forth rules that prohibit the athlete from specific endorsements or activities ?
Can an athlete endorse alcohol, a strip club, weed shop ?
What about a Nike school prohibiting an athlete from endorsing adidas ?

Pretty sure the last point is part of the California law.

[paulxu]

So, one year campaigns around a one-and-done?

Zion would have played in California last year.

[chico]

Maybe someone's already said this - I'm too lazy to go back and read everything - but it would seem the easy answer is to let a kid go pro when he turns 18, like he can in every other sport except the two big moneymakers for colleges.

If a kid wants to go to college he gets a free education in return (and I'd make it like baseball where the kid stays for at least 2 years), but if he wants to make a profession of it he's welcome to go to the professional leagues. I know this could potentially drain the best talent, but in the long run it may be best for a sport like basketball because now players who go to college will get a chance to develop. I also wouldn't mind a provision that if a kid does go pro at age 18 and can't cut it he'd be eligible to come back and play in college (I'd add the caveat that it would have to be within 4-5 years of the kid turning 18 so you wouldn't have a guy in his 30's deciding to go to college after his NBA career has ended).

The ability to pay players above board will create even less of a level playing field than there is now.

[xukeith]

It is okay for tennis players to be pro at age 15. Same with race car drivers.

Let basketball players tryout at a camp and let the NBA team draft them.
If they do not get drafted, start touring schools or places overseas.

[Drew]

It is okay for tennis players to be pro at age 15. Same with race car drivers.

Let basketball players tryout at a camp and let the NBA team draft them.
If they do not get drafted, start touring schools or places overseas.

Or we treat college athletics like the billion dollar business it is and cut them in on the profits.

[noteggs]

Interesting response from Christopher on the Minnesota Congressman’s proposed bill on Twitter.

“The right path. With 1,000+ institutions, NIL needs a national approach. And get past the level playing field argument. Resources are resources — there isn’t competitive balance today.”

[scoscox]

i mean sure, but won't this exacerbate that already existing problem?

[XUGRAD80]

People keep talking about all these “profits”, but I’d challenge them to find them. 99% of the universities do not have profitable athletic departments. In fact, most universities charge all students a fee which supports those departments.

So if they ever get to a point where they are paying athletes directly from out of the athletic department budgets....who is going to pay for that? That money has to come from somewhere. It’s not like it’s just sitting there collecting interest in a bank or like they are investing it the stock market. It’s used to pay for all of the non-revenue sports. They have expenses too, travel, paying coaches, equipment, insurance, etc. More money would have to be coming from somewhere OR cuts to expenses would have to be made. Do you raise the student fees? Do you raise ticket prices and seat licensing fees? Do you try to raise it by selling advertising on the uniforms? OR do you see all non-revenue sports cut? You know the true STUDENT-athletes that we’re what COLLEGE sports are supposed to be all about and where why they were started in the first place.

But this legislation has NOTHING to do with that anyway. All of the money being earned would be OUTSIDE of the universities or the NCAA control and would be subject only to the laws and regulations that effect any other workplace or independent contractors. And that’s a HUGE potential problem. The potential for abuse, with no real controls over how much anyone can make, what exactly the agreements can pay...and to whom, etc. is the real problem here.

[Drew]

People keep talking about all these “profits”, but I’d challenge them to find them. 99% of the universities do not have profitable athletic departments. In fact, most universities charge all students a fee which supports those departments.

So if they ever get to a point where they are paying athletes directly from out of the athletic department budgets....who is going to pay for that? That money has to come from somewhere. It’s not like it’s just sitting there collecting interest in a bank or like they are investing it the stock market. It’s used to pay for all of the non-revenue sports. They have expenses too, travel, paying coaches, equipment, insurance, etc. More money would have to be coming from somewhere OR cuts to expenses would have to be made. Do you raise the student fees? Do you raise ticket prices and seat licensing fees? Do you try to raise it by selling advertising on the uniforms? OR do you see all non-revenue sports cut? You know the true STUDENT-athletes that we’re what COLLEGE sports are supposed to be all about and where why they were started in the first place.

But this legislation has NOTHING to do with that anyway. All of the money being earned would be OUTSIDE of the universities or the NCAA control and would be subject only to the laws and regulations that effect any other workplace or independent contractors. And that’s a HUGE potential problem. The potential for abuse, with no real controls over how much anyone can make, what exactly the agreements can pay...and to whom, etc. is the real problem here.


Alright. I will bite. Sources of money that I see readily available to pay the players with.

1. TV Contract. 4.7 million dollars a year. Xavier basketball ran for 100 years before ever getting more than 200k a year for their TV rights. So that is 4.7 million dollars that didn't exist and does know.
2. Coaching salaries: Steele makes around 2 million. Anyone who can look me in the face and say that job wouldn't still be valuable at even 250k is kidding themselves.
3. Athletic director, assistants. Too many being paid too well, there is a few mil here.
4. Exorbitant costs. We willingly pay for a private plane and million dollar locker rooms but give some to the players and instantly there isn't enough.

I would feel comfortable with players getting at least 50k a year in cash. You're telling me you can't find 500k between all those? Give me a break.

[scoscox]

i'd be fine if it came out of coaches and administrators salaries

[xu82]

i'd be fine if it came out of coaches and administrators salaries

If only it were as simple as that. You can decide to cut X% from those salaries, then they will look around for the next best offer. We compete for that talent too, it’s just more transparent and above board. The athletes are less transparent, and to some extent less legal. Who’s paying taxes on that money?

I don’t pretend to have an answer.

[Olsingledigit]

If only it were as simple as that. You can decide to cut X% from those salaries, then they will look around for the next best offer. We compete for that talent too, it’s just more transparent and above board. The athletes are less transparent, and to some extent less legal. Who’s paying taxes on that money?

I don’t pretend to have an answer.

Very simple as to taxes. The money is taxable to the player receiving the money.

[muskiefan82]

I wonder if scholarships could be lowered for players making this much cash as they no longer have the financial need for the scholarship. Could there be a rule that payments or compensation in excess of $x make the scholarship void and the player must pay to attend?

[paulxu]

Another take on it:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/california-did-the-right-thing-dont-buy-into-the-ncaas-propaganda/2019/10/02/21ed7b14-e531-11e9-a331-2df12d56a80b_story.html

[scoscox]

If only it were as simple as that. You can decide to cut X% from those salaries, then they will look around for the next best offer. We compete for that talent too, it’s just more transparent and above board. The athletes are less transparent, and to some extent less legal. Who’s paying taxes on that money?

I don’t pretend to have an answer.

That’s what I meant “if only it were as simple as taking the money from the coaches and administrators I’d have no problem”. Unfortunately that’s not the case

[xubrew]

I wonder if scholarships could be lowered for players making this much cash as they no longer have the financial need for the scholarship. Could there be a rule that payments or compensation in excess of $x make the scholarship void and the player must pay to attend?

Almost no one would be in favor of that. Scholarships can be lowered now, but no one does it.

[Muskie]

Almost no one would be in favor of that. Scholarships can be lowered now, but no one does it.

It seems like the "simple" thing to do is to take the tv and broadcadsting money and divide it amongst the NCAA and then a certain percentage goes to the players. They could then put a cap in place. Player A can receive up to X dollars per academic year. The problem isn't the compensation of players, but the overpayment of players that induces them to choose one institution over another because of extras.

[xubrew]

It seems like the "simple" thing to do is to take the tv and broadcadsting money and divide it amongst the NCAA and then a certain percentage goes to the players. They could then put a cap in place. Player A can receive up to X dollars per academic year. The problem isn't the compensation of players, but the overpayment of players that induces them to choose one institution over another because of extras.

Yeah, they had the chance to do that. They wouldn't even listen to anyone who suggested it. If they had, then people would have probably not felt nearly as compelled to push for virtually unlimited NIL rights.

[Final4]

Does the language in these bills specifically state that a player cannot sign with an agent nor secure endorsements until after they are actively enrolled in school? Or can they actively pursue these benefits prior to enrolling and thus be potentially influenced during the recruiting process?

[xubrew]

Does the language in these bills specifically state that a player cannot sign with an agent nor secure endorsements until after they are actively enrolled in school? Or can they actively pursue these benefits prior to enrolling and thus be potentially influenced during the recruiting process?

I'm pretty sure it allows them to pursue benefits at any point

[muskiefan82]

How does Baseball work? When the student-athlete signs a deal, but still plays college ball? Are all payments deferred or so they have money coming in while in school?

[xubrew]

How does Baseball work? When the student-athlete signs a deal, but still plays college ball? Are all payments deferred or so they have money coming in while in school?

Do you mean when players get drafted before the NCAA Tournament is over?

They typically don't sign their contracts until after the season. Being drafted just means a team has a rights to a player, not that the player has signed. You can actually be drafted up to four times in baseball. Or is it five?

EDIT: It’s five. Out of high school, out of JUCO, after your third year of college, after your fourth year of college, and if you redshirted you can be drafted one last time after your fifth year of college.

This has nothing to do with the conversation, but I thought it was interesting.

[muskiefan82]

Do you mean when players get drafted before the NCAA Tournament is over?

They typically don't sign their contracts until after the season. Being drafted just means a team has a rights to a player, not that the player has signed. You can actually be drafted up to four times in baseball. Or is it five?

EDIT: It’s five. Out of high school, out of JUCO, after your third year of college, after your fourth year of college, and if you redshirted you can be drafted one last time after your fifth year of college.

This has nothing to do with the conversation, but I thought it was interesting.

I think I misunderstood what happens to baseball players. I did a little reading. Looks like they don't receive anything in order to maintain eligibility. At least for now.

[Final4]

I'm pretty sure it allows them to pursue benefits at any point

Wonderful. So let's use Miami of Ohio as an example. A group of wealthy alums who both love Miami and love college basketball decide that they're going to target the best five players in the upcoming class. They offer each a $250,000 endorsement deal, secure their commitments and thus buy a national championship (or at least dramatically improve their odds). Now you have boosters actively engaged in the recruiting process.........and there are people out there that think this is a good idea?

[muskiefan82]

Wonderful. So let's use Miami of Ohio as an example. A group of wealthy alums who both love Miami and love college basketball decide that they're going to target the best five players in the upcoming class. They offer each a $250,000 endorsement deal, secure their commitments and thus buy a national championship (or at least dramatically improve their odds). Now you have boosters actively engaged in the recruiting process.........and there are people out there that think this is a good idea?

Until a wealthier group from Ohio State (or insert other university) offers a $300,000 deal and on and on it goes

[xubrew]

Wonderful. So let's use Miami of Ohio as an example. A group of wealthy alums who both love Miami and love college basketball decide that they're going to target the best five players in the upcoming class. They offer each a $250,000 endorsement deal, secure their commitments and thus buy a national championship (or at least dramatically improve their odds). Now you have boosters actively engaged in the recruiting process.........and there are people out there that think this is a good idea?

To some extent this already occurs, both with paying players under the table and paying coaches over the table. T Boone Pickens and Phil Knight come to mind.

But, it isn't so much a good or a bad idea as it is the things that the laws are going to force the NCAA to adopt. One way or another it's going to happen, and to me one way seems to be a much messier way than the other, so the NCAA should at least try to avoid that and work to make it so we don't have fifty different states with fifty different laws. I'm not saying that I like or dislike it. I'm just saying that's the way it's ultimately going to be.

[muskiefan82]

It does make sense for the NCAA to propose something across the board for all athletes rather than letting the states make their own rules. They need to find something palatable to all of the states and institutions and develop the rules from there. This current road is just stupid for both the NCAA and the individual states and their schools.

[Drew]

Until a wealthier group from Ohio State (or insert other university) offers a $300,000 deal and on and on it goes

This is already being done with college athletics except the players are getting cut out.

If competitive balance is your worry, right now recruiting rankings tracks almost 1:1 with athletic budget. So its hardly a level playing field. So I would redirect your energy towards that battle. If its players being compensated then I would suggest you check your moral compass.

[XUGRAD80]

Ok, let’s say this law goes into effect and the NCAA is forced to change their rules. What’s next?

Right now the NCAA places a limit on how many scholarships can be given out in each sport, but doesn’t limit how many players can actually be on the roster. Xavier can only have 13 scholarship athletes, the same as UK, Duke, NC and all the rest. But if a player signs a contract with an outside business for the use of his image, and part of his compensation is having his college paid for, what need does he/she have of an athletic scholarship? So in essence, the boosters will be able to buy as many players as they have the money to pay. The only limit will be how much money wants to be paid out. Even if the NCAA places limits in the size of the rosters, the law makers can claim that is restraint of trade and pass a law overriding it.

Once we have the legislatures writing the rules, and the courts upholding those laws, there is no limit to the possible changes that could be coming.

[muskiefan82]

And if they can field a team without scholarships, will they cut scholarships for females since they only have to have equal amounts?

[Drew]

Ok. So the hypothetical here is what exactly? Schools will stop offering scholarships because of outside sponsors? Y'all are stretching.

[scoscox]

Ok. So the hypothetical here is what exactly? Schools will stop offering scholarships because of outside sponsors? Y'all are stretching.

Unlikely but if a sponsor will cover it anyway they have less incentive. Functionally it’s still a scholarship just covered by a different entity

[XUGRAD80]

Ok. So the hypothetical here is what exactly? Schools will stop offering scholarships because of outside sponsors? Y'all are stretching.

While that is certainly a possibility, I’d be more concerned with the idea that there would really be no limits as to what areas the legislature could get involved in, or as to what the NCAA, the schools, etc could be sued for.
——roster sizes
——academic eligibility requirements
Are two things that immediately come to mind. Can the state limit how many people someone hires for their business? Does the state place requirements on student academic performance when it comes to any other student taking on a job? One of the arguments for athletes being allowed to earn money, is that other students get to work and make money, why shouldn’t they be allowed to do the same? I think it’s logical then to ask why would student-athletes have ANY extra requirements placed on them that other students do not? Especially if they aren’t on scholarship from the school itself.

As a former student-athlete that was not on scholarship, I certainly had no restrictions placed on me in regards to how much money I could earn or how many hours I could work. I don’t think that there were any restrictions placed on other students, in regards to their academics, when they wanted to join a club. Could restrictions in those areas be deemed unfair and banned for scholarship student-athletes too?

We had a few very good members of the team that were not allowed to attend the NCAA tournament because of their academic performance being below the min. standards for eligibility. If a legislature decides to pass a law making that illegal, do academic standards go away?

Pandora’s Box

[xubrew]

While that is certainly a possibility, I’d be more concerned with the idea that there would really be no limits as to what areas the legislature could get involved in, or as to what the NCAA, the schools, etc could be sued for.
——roster sizes
——academic eligibility requirements
Are two things that immediately come to mind. Can the state limit how many people someone hires for their business? Does the state place requirements on student academic performance when it comes to any other student taking on a job? One of the arguments for athletes being allowed to earn money, is that other students get to work and make money, why shouldn’t they be allowed to do the same? I think it’s logical then to ask why would student-athletes have ANY extra requirements placed on them that other students do not? Especially if they aren’t on scholarship from the school itself.

As a former student-athlete that was not on scholarship, I certainly had no restrictions placed on me in regards to how much money I could earn or how many hours I could work. I don’t think that there were any restrictions placed on other students, in regards to their academics, when they wanted to join a club. Could restrictions in those areas be deemed unfair and banned for scholarship student-athletes too?

We had a few very good members of the team that were not allowed to attend the NCAA tournament because of their academic performance being below the min. standards for eligibility. If a legislature decides to pass a law making that illegal, do academic standards go away?

Pandora’s Box

I'm rather certain that there are no roster limits now. Only scholarship limits. You can have 150 people on your football team if you want to, and schools often care more than 130 (at least at the beginning of August), but only 85 (at the FBS level) can be on scholarship. I don't think there are limits for basketball either, and teams typically carry a walk on or two.

As far as acdemic eligibility, MAYBE...but probably not. I think that falls under the category of academic freedom. Intercollegiate athletics will still remain an institutional activity, and players must be in good academic standing to participate.

I do think things will change, and I can see them changing in ways that some people don't like. What's kind of frustrating is that I feel the NCAA should have seen this coming and could have managed it better had they decided to not just keep doubling down on it. But, I've ranted about that enough over the years. We are where we are. When it comes to some of the things people are freaking out about, like 50 people on a basketball team where they're all making six figure endorsements and none of them are passing any of their classes, I'm just not that concerned about it. I think that once the earthquake is over and everything stops shaking, most of the buildings will still be standing, and when we watch the games it won't look or feel all that much different than it does right now. The biggest pain in the ass will likely be that boosters will want more control than what they already have, and while people who work or coach in athletics may hate that, most fans who like watching college sports won't even notice it at all.

[Drew]

While that is certainly a possibility, I’d be more concerned with the idea that there would really be no limits as to what areas the legislature could get involved in, or as to what the NCAA, the schools, etc could be sued for.
——roster sizes
——academic eligibility requirements
Are two things that immediately come to mind. Can the state limit how many people someone hires for their business? Does the state place requirements on student academic performance when it comes to any other student taking on a job? One of the arguments for athletes being allowed to earn money, is that other students get to work and make money, why shouldn’t they be allowed to do the same? I think it’s logical then to ask why would student-athletes have ANY extra requirements placed on them that other students do not? Especially if they aren’t on scholarship from the school itself.

As a former student-athlete that was not on scholarship, I certainly had no restrictions placed on me in regards to how much money I could earn or how many hours I could work. I don’t think that there were any restrictions placed on other students, in regards to their academics, when they wanted to join a club. Could restrictions in those areas be deemed unfair and banned for scholarship student-athletes too?

We had a few very good members of the team that were not allowed to attend the NCAA tournament because of their academic performance being below the min. standards for eligibility. If a legislature decides to pass a law making that illegal, do academic standards go away?

Pandora’s Box

I think there are 2 things to consider here. Reality and the possible.

1. It's been over 30 years since college athletics started seeing coaches with 7 figure salaries https://www-bannersociety-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.bannersociety.com/platform/amp/2019/8/15/20732192/coach-salaries-history-highest?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCKAE%3D#aoh=15701972722092&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bannersociety.com%2F201 9%2F8%2F15%2F20732192%2Fcoach-salaries-history-highest and just now legislature is getting around to forcing the NCAAs hand on obviously the most egregious power grab. Name image and likeness rights. So I find it hard to believe they will quickly be micromanaging all aspects.

2. There is already a mechanism for solving all the possible sticking points you pointed out. And that is a CBA with a players union. So I dont see it happening, but that is the obvious route if power structures were equalized.

[XUGRAD80]

I think the difference here is that many of the posters are looking at this only from the point of view as a fan, and a college basketball fan first and foremost. I get that.

The difference is, I’m looking at it as to how it will possibly effect the student-athletes, and not just the basketball and football student-athletes at the major institutions, but the student-athletes of all the other sports and at all of the other institutions too.

The current California law may directly only effect certain athletes at certain institutions. However it has the potential to indirectly effect many more student athletes than those it effect directly.

In addition, IMO this type of legislation opens the door to virtually any other legislation that some state legislative body might consider needed to, in their opinion, make things “fair” for college student-athletes. I don’t think it much of a stretch to say that it’s only a matter of time before there is legislation passed that mandates the payment of student athletes at state institutions. And when that happens, that added expense to already strained athletic department budgets can only mean massive cuts to non-revenue sports and even revenue sports that lose money year after year. Now, that might be OK for those of you that only care about your favorite school’s BB or Football programs that compete at the highest levels. But for those of us that care about every sport and every student-athlete, and don’t see college sports as just entertainment for ourselves or as a path to professional sports for the athletes, it’s a potential disaster.

[Drew]

I think the difference here is that many of the posters are looking at this only from the point of view as a fan, and a college basketball fan first and foremost. I get that.

The difference is, I’m looking at it as to how it will possibly effect the student-athletes, and not just the basketball and football student-athletes at the major institutions, but the student-athletes of all the other sports and at all of the other institutions too.

The current California law may directly only effect certain athletes at certain institutions. However it has the potential to indirectly effect many more student athletes than those it effect directly.

In addition, IMO this type of legislation opens the door to virtually any other legislation that some state legislative body might consider needed to, in their opinion, make things “fair” for college student-athletes. I don’t think it much of a stretch to say that it’s only a matter of time before there is legislation passed that mandates the payment of student athletes at state institutions. And when that happens, that added expense to already strained athletic department budgets can only mean massive cuts to non-revenue sports and even revenue sports that lose money year after year. Now, that might be OK for those of you that only care about your favorite school’s BB or Football programs that compete at the highest levels. But for those of us that care about every sport and every student-athlete, and don’t see college sports as just entertainment for ourselves or as a path to professional sports for the athletes, it’s a potential disaster.

Can people please stop acting as if athletic programs are a huge loser? The highest paid public employee of every state is a coach. College athletics is an absolute gravy train. There is money to pay revenue generating athletes and keep the volleyball program. Its simply disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

[sirthought]

I am a staunch believer in the free market and its positive affects in society. Except for monopolies. That is what the NCAA is. College athletics is a business that generates billions in revenue each year. NCAA controls the market and is effectively price fixing by forcing everyone to pay the same.


Or we treat college athletics like the billion dollar business it is and cut them in on the profits.

i think you are wrong here on both points. It is a free market, but most certainly not a monopoly. And the profits aren't really what they seem when looking at the whole college system.

How the NCAA fits into the entire landscape is free market. No one is stopping a minor league from beginning and taking players on at this level. In fact there are a couple efforts happening with people involved like David West and Lavar Ball. They each have their business structure and terms laid out to perspective employees and how they'd help young athletes. And so does the NCAA, yet they are not required (or shouldn't be) to follow the same structure and terms of other league businesses. That's the free market and shows that the NCAA isn't a monopoly when it comes to this level of sports.

And further proving that the NCAA isn't a monopoly: athletes are not bound to go to college or have their sports careers ruined forever. Just like many foreign players could play professionally in their own countries come to the NCAA for amateur play, U.S.A. born athletes could go over to other countries and play in their lower professional leagues. Lamelo Ball went over to Latvia instead of college and many people are considering him a top ten draft prospect. If you don't like what the college system offers you have other options for you to work hard, get coached and try to prove your value to the world. Getting paid thousands of dollars from a local business just because we think you might be a good prospect is actually far more stupid on the part of all parties because it shows how far out of whack priorities have gotten. Still, if it happens that's the free market, but the NCAA doesn't have to participate in that, even if the athlete and local business wants to.

Regarding profits: we're looking at football and basketball as generating big dollars in revenue, but that money isn't going just to pay for those sports. The whole athletic department is run off that revenue (Facilities, tuition, salaries) and often schools are required to hold programs due to Title IX laws. The University of Kentucky is currently being sued because they have 183 fewer women scholarship athletes than men. This sort of outside force that has nothing to do with the sport of basketball means that revenue isn't available for distribution, especially not if it means that equal benefits will have to be given across all sports--which it will come to that.

While student athletes might feel like they are getting the short end, they don't have to manage the whole thing or the expectations. They benefit far more from the system than they are burdened. The current system of compensation is mostly achievable through school's funding framework and ability to raise revenue through fundraising, tickets, and business deals. But if we pile on to that with lots of outside business wanting in on the action, that can all be easy come/easy go. Again, they can look for opportunities elsewhere if they don't like how it's structured. That's just business in the free market.

[XUGRAD80]

Can people please stop acting as if athletic programs are a huge loser? The highest paid public employee of every state is a coach. College athletics is an absolute gravy train. There is money to pay revenue generating athletes and keep the volleyball program. Its simply disingenuous to suggest otherwise.


Source?


Because according to many many sources....newspapers, magazines, outside reporters, MOST college athletic departments are subsidized by fees placed on students or by taking money from the colleges general fund.

For example.....the U of Cincinnati had a record $102 million dollar DEFICIT from 2014-2017, despite having the highest revenue in the country for a non Power 5 University.

From a personal standpoint, I’ve never known an AD that wasn’t crying all the time over the lack of money and wasn’t looking for ways to cut costs.....even to the point of dropping sports because of “lack of funding”.

If all that money is out there.....why do universities cut sports? Try asking the soccer coaches at X, or the swimming coaches, if they feel the same way. Let alone the coaches whose programs were eliminated by “cost cutting”.

[scoscox]

Xavier would have much better olympic facilities than it does if it were awash with cash

[Drew]

i think you are wrong here on both points. It is a free market, but most certainly not a monopoly. And the profits aren't really what they seem when looking at the whole college system.

How the NCAA fits into the entire landscape is free market. No one is stopping a minor league from beginning and taking players on at this level. In fact there are a couple efforts happening with people involved like David West and Lavar Ball. They each have their business structure and terms laid out to perspective employees and how they'd help young athletes. And so does the NCAA, yet they are not required (or shouldn't be) to follow the same structure and terms of other league businesses. That's the free market and shows that the NCAA isn't a monopoly when it comes to this level of sports.

And further proving that the NCAA isn't a monopoly: athletes are not bound to go to college or have their sports careers ruined forever. Just like many foreign players could play professionally in their own countries come to the NCAA for amateur play, U.S.A. born athletes could go over to other countries and play in their lower professional leagues. Lamelo Ball went over to Latvia instead of college and many people are considering him a top ten draft prospect. If you don't like what the college system offers you have other options for you to work hard, get coached and try to prove your value to the world. Getting paid thousands of dollars from a local business just because we think you might be a good prospect is actually far more stupid on the part of all parties because it shows how far out of whack priorities have gotten. Still, if it happens that's the free market, but the NCAA doesn't have to participate in that, even if the athlete and local business wants to.

Regarding profits: we're looking at football and basketball as generating big dollars in revenue, but that money isn't going just to pay for those sports. The whole athletic department is run off that revenue (Facilities, tuition, salaries) and often schools are required to hold programs due to Title IX laws. The University of Kentucky is currently being sued because they have 183 fewer women scholarship athletes than men. This sort of outside force that has nothing to do with the sport of basketball means that revenue isn't available for distribution, especially not if it means that equal benefits will have to be given across all sports--which it will come to that.

While student athletes might feel like they are getting the short end, they don't have to manage the whole thing or the expectations. They benefit far more from the system than they are burdened. The current system of compensation is mostly achievable through school's funding framework and ability to raise revenue through fundraising, tickets, and business deals. But if we pile on to that with lots of outside business wanting in on the action, that can all be easy come/easy go. Again, they can look for opportunities elsewhere if they don't like how it's structured. That's just business in the free market.

Ok, where do I start.

1. The NCAA is a monopoly. It is no different than the NFL, MLB, NHL, NBA etc. Of course competitors are free to open up business but the absolute majority of the market is owned by a single entity. You know why the NFL etc. are allowed to behave this way, because they have a CBA with a union. The second that CBA expires the very first thing the players do is sue on anti-trust grounds. So you can call it a free market all you want, doesn't make it so.

2. Anyone who can look at what people are paid throughout all of college athletics and then conclude that they are suffering is having some serious cognitive issues. College athletics have existed for hundreds of years. Only since the 80's and the advent of television contracts has the enterprise become flush with cash. CBS pays the NCAA $1 billion, BILLION, a year for the rights to air an amateur tournament. The average P5 coach makes over a million dollars A YEAR. The president of the NCAA makes $2 million a year.

3. Revenue sports don't, and shouldn't, subsidize the other sports. Like I said, before the 80's this concept didn't exist and those programs still existed. So people need to decouple these ideas, because its just an excuse to not give the players their due.

4. Use Michigan as an example. They employe 388 people in their Atheltic Department with an average of $100,000 a year. Does that seem like a struggling enterprise? http://www.umsalary.info/deptsearch.php?Dept=athletics I really don't know what else to say. Working in college athletics is big bucks.

5. Man, the more I look at those Michigan salaries the more hilarious it is. And remember, the average american salary is just under 50k. The SOFTBALL coach makes $459,000 a year. Man, why did I go into IT?

[sirthought]

The average salary of all D1 head coaches isn't much more than $200,000. Outside of the top seven or so conferences salaries drop considerably.

[xubrew]

I don't think the non-revenue sports are at risk. Why would they be?? Everyone was so convinced that the Cost of Living, which actually was an added expense to the athletic departments, would be the end of the non-revenue sports. It wasn't. Since it went into effect, I believe there have been less than 20 sports total that have been cut. North Dakota cut baseball and golf, Pitt cut tennis, Eastern Michigan cut swimming, softball, wrestling, and something else, and a think a few track teams have been cut. But, the rate of sports being cut didn't increase at all. Sports were being cut before the cost of living. And, if anything, more schools have added sports added sports than what have cut them.

Plus, I haven't heard of anyone who works with the non revenue sports or the country club sports expressing any concern over it. Has anyone heard of them freaking out?? The people in the media who are wringing their hands over it don't seem to have any real ties or actual interest in non-revenue sports. They are just in search of a problem and have focused on something that isn’t actually a problem. Giving players the rights to their NILs won't cost the schools any more money, and if anything it will allow the country club sports to make money because actual country clubs will now be able to hire them.

I really don't think the non-revenue sports are the issue. I think the real danger to college sports over this comes from outside influences becoming far more powerful and far more influential.

[XUGRAD80]

Why would they be? Simply look at history and tell me why there are not the programs today that there were in the past. Why have so many sports been dropped at schools that are supposedly “flush with cash”?

It may be true that there is a lot of cash flowing at certain schools and even in certain conferences.....but there are 347 D1 schools in the NCAA. The ones that show a profit in their athletic department are about 10% of that 347, and virtually none of those would show a profit if they didn’t have the rest of the student body paying an extra fee or didn’t get support from the general fund.

In addition....why do you suppose that (if athletic departments are flush with cash) the NCAA has placed a limit on the # of scholarships that most of the “minor” sports can give out? Perhaps you don’t know that they don’t get a full scholarship number equal to the number of players on a roster? For example, even at the top wrestling schools, in the top conferences (Penn State, OSU, Iowa, Oklahoma, etc.), even though they have 10 people in their starting lineups, they are limited to 5 full scholarships, which are then split up and partial scholarships are given to several team members. Same is true in baseball, track, cross country, swimming, gymnastics, and a host of women’s sports too.

The numbers reported by the universities do not support the idea that college athletics is a money maker for 90% of the universities, and the results and history of what has happened over the years, does not either.

[xubrew]

Why would they be? Simply look at history and tell me why there are not the programs today that there were in the past. Why have so many sports been dropped at schools that are supposedly “flush with cash”?

It may be true that there is a lot of cash flowing at certain schools and even in certain conferences.....but there are 347 D1 schools in the NCAA. The ones that show a profit in their athletic department are about 10% of that 347, and virtually none of those would show a profit if they didn’t have the rest of the student body paying an extra fee or didn’t get support from the general fund.

In addition....why do you suppose that (if athletic departments are flush with cash) the NCAA has placed a limit on the # of scholarships that most of the “minor” sports can give out? Perhaps you don’t know that they don’t get a full scholarship number equal to the number of players on a roster? For example, even at the top wrestling schools, in the top conferences (Penn State, OSU, Iowa, Oklahoma, etc.), even though they have 10 people in their starting lineups, they are limited to 5 full scholarships, which are then split up and partial scholarships are given to several team members. Same is true in baseball, track, cross country, swimming, gymnastics, and a host of women’s sports too.

The numbers reported by the universities do not support the idea that college athletics is a money maker for 90% of the universities, and the results and history of what has happened over the years, does not either.

You keep saying that all these sports are being cut. They're not!! Which sports at which schools are you talking about?? A lot of schools have cut wrestling, but that was due more to Title IX than it was to cost, and that was before the pay for play push. Since "pay for play has started to be pushed, there have been more sports added than there have been cut. There are more college athletes now than there ever have been before. There are more teams than there ever have been before. There are more div1 schools fielding more div1 sports than there have ever been before. So, where are all these massive cuts that are going on?

Giving players the rights to their NIL is not an extra expense for the university or the athletic department. You talk as if it were.

Something else you said that you're not entirely correct on. There is not a limit on the NUMBER of scholarships that "minor" sports can hand out. There are headcount sports and equivalency sports at the div1 level. For your head count sports like basketball, schools are allowed a certain number. Any type of aid, be it a full athletic scholarship, a partial athletic scholarship, a partial academic scholarship, or whatever, means that they count as one of the 13 that they are allowed (or 15 in women's basketball, or 85 in FBS football). If they receive five dollars, it counts. For equivalency sports, they are basically allotted a certain amount of athletic aid that they can divvy up however they see fit. But the other thing that equivalency sports allow for is other types of aid. So, you get what is called stacked aid. A soccer player can be on an academic scholarship and an athletic scholarship. So depending on what type of players you're recruiting, you can actually field some pretty good teams without really having to give out a whole lot of athletic scholarship money. You can't do that in the "major" sports. But, like you said, they're not all on full scholarship. That means they've either earned some other type of scholarship, or they're paying for part of it themselves. Why would a school want to cut that?? They're getting money from students that likely wouldn't be there if it wasn't for having the "minor" sport, or they're getting a high achieving student that's on an academic scholarship that also wouldn't likely be there if it wasn't for having the "minor" sport.

But, none of that has anything to do with NILs and the expenses that NILs will add to athletic departments. The truth of the matter is NILs add zero expense to athletic departments. So, why would any of the Olympic sports be at risk?

Another thing to consider. While athletics can be expenses, scholarships really aren't an expense. They actually cost virtually nothing. That's especially true at public schools that are trying to grow their enrollment. When Ohio State offers a scholarship and the athletic department pays for his tuition, housing, meals, and books, they write the check to...Ohio State. It doesn't cost $50,000 to write yourself a check for $50,000, and that is essentially what scholarships are. I suppose at some smaller private schools where they have a cap on overall enrollment, someone on an athletic scholarship could be taking the place of someone who would have paid full tuition, and that is sort of an expense. But, not at most of your big public institutions. Athletes aren't taking the place of those paying tuition. They are just there in addition to those paying tuition. I believe it was Eastern Illinois who's faculty pushed for a reduction in athletic scholarships in order to save money, and then a year later were wondering why the general fund was short hundreds of thousands of dollars. It was at that point they realized that athletics was actually supplying that money, and that the "cost" of the scholarships really wasn't leaving the institution and the money they gave to athletics for scholarships was actually money that came right back to them. Five years ago UAB cut football and two other sports saying that it would save money. Six months later they realized it was actually costing them money, and they brought it back.

But, AGAIN, even if scholarships did cost the schools money (which it really doesn't), giving players the rights to their NILs add a grand total of $0 in expenses to athletic departments, so they aren't going to be looking to cut the minor sports.

There are 353 div1 schools by the way, and next year there will be 355. To my knowledge none of the schools that have moved up in recent years have cut any sports in the process.

[xudash]

Since we are talking about the business end of all of this, let’s also keep in mind that sports programs for D1 schools comprise the “marketing“ front door of every D1 school in United States, save for Ivy League schools.

I believe Father Hoff referred to the Cintas Center as Xavier‘s “living room”.

Notwithstanding differences in accounting procedures, I suspect that many schools technically are unprofitable when it comes to sports. If that were not the case, then the line item pertaining to student fee subsidies would not exist. Regardless, it’s in our culture. College pride and all of that. When the TV money got going, and when the facilities arms race picked up in earnest in the 90s, the athletics “game” was completely changed.

BTW, by keeping the Cintas Center state of the art, by adding a new practice facility for it, and with the renovations of the O’Conner Center, Xavier will continue to materially improve its overall position when it comes to athletic facilities.

[XUGRAD80]

Well all I can say is that you are wrong if you don’t think that increasing costs, by having to directly pay student athletes, would not mean that cuts would happen elsewhere. The only other option is to increase the revenue somehow. Keep in mind that it would have to be that ALL student-athletes get paid, or none of them get paid. The title IX considerations alone would mandate that there be equal pay between men and women. I can’t imagine many courts that would allow football players to be paid, and say that hockey players don’t need to be.

If you’re under the opinion that those cuts would come to football coaches and basketball coaching salaries, I think you’re wrong there too.

So where will those cuts come from?

Cuts after the advent of Title IX were done for cost cutting, nothing else. They cut men’s sports so that they could afford to pay for women’s sports. I’d say it’s pretty logical to expect that if a university all of a sudden has to start paying all of its student-athletes, then men’s AND women’s sports ARE going to be cut.

As far as the pint that the California legislation wouldn’t increase costs, so the argument is moot....I agree, IF that was the end of the legislation to be considered.

BUT.....are you aware of the legislation proposed in the state of NY that would make it mandatory that ALL universities be required to hold back 15% of their revenue, and that 15% must then be divided between all of the student-athletes?

Like I’ve said in prior posts......there really are NO LIMITS to the legislation that can be proposed, once it’s decided that it’s OK for the government to get involved in writing the rules and regulations for voluntarily entered into associations.

[Drew]

Sick of debating the specifics, the facts are this. The P5 + Big East are awash with cash and there are thousands of student athletes every year that could easily be compensated at least 50k and realistically more without overly burdening the programs. Doesn't this fact make some of you mad? Most of these athletes are coming from families with literally nothing to their names. All of these athletes will graduate with 0 dollars in their bank accounts while their coaches and athletic directors will have multiple millions in theirs. I don't want to use the Catholic guilt, but this is a pretty basic case for moral outrage. I love Xavier and Xavier basketball, but I can't help but squirm when I see a player go down with an injury knowing his career might be over before he ever sees a cent to his name. 200k could be generation changing for many of these kids and a lot of you really need to consider the number of lives that would be positively changed by simply loosening up the grip on tradition and greed. Those are my last thoughts on the matter.

[scoscox]

The big east is not awash with cash. That’s just not a fact

[XUGRAD80]

Sick of debating the specifics, the facts are this. The P5 + Big East are awash with cash and there are thousands of student athletes every year that could easily be compensated at least 50k and realistically more without overly burdening the programs. Doesn't this fact make some of you mad? Most of these athletes are coming from families with literally nothing to their names. All of these athletes will graduate with 0 dollars in their bank accounts while their coaches and athletic directors will have multiple millions in theirs. I don't want to use the Catholic guilt, but this is a pretty basic case for moral outrage. I love Xavier and Xavier basketball, but I can't help but squirm when I see a player go down with an injury knowing his career might be over before he ever sees a cent to his name. 200k could be generation changing for many of these kids and a lot of you really need to consider the number of lives that would be positively changed by simply loosening up the grip on tradition and greed. Those are my last thoughts on the matter.


There are 460,000 student athletes competing in NCAA schools....and you want them all to be paid 50K a year? That’s only 23 TRILLION dollars. Sure, why not?

Ohio State University has 1038 student athletes. At 50K each that’s only 52 MILLION dollars. Chump change, right?

Sorry to bring up specifics, but those are FACTS.

[bjf123]

Maybe I’m missing something, but why are we talking about paying all athletes? Doesn’t the CA bill says they can be paid for their likeness being used? Won’t we just end up the the star QB at Stanford getting a big dollar deal with some game company or shoe company while the 3rd string punter or the backup goalie on the lacrosse team gets squat?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[XUGRAD80]

Maybe I’m missing something, but why are we talking about paying all athletes? Doesn’t the CA bill says they can be paid for their likeness being used? Won’t we just end up the the star QB at Stanford getting a big dollar deal with some game company or shoe company while the 3rd string punter or the backup goalie on the lacrosse team gets squat?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Two separate discussions....

Drew is insisting that the college athletics is a “gravy train” and that the athletes SHOULD be paid by the universities since they are “awash with cash”. Despite what the actual numbers are, and how much it would cost to pay the athletes ( Drew says they should be paid 50K a year ).

I think that most understand that outside sources paying certain athletes would not necessarily place a financial burden on any universities athletic departments, whatever other problems it may cause.

However, there is current proposed legislation in New York that would require athletes to be paid directly by the schools. The proposal is that 15% of all revenue the athletic department takes in would be set aside in a fund, and then paid directly to the athletes. I don’t doubt that other such legislation will be proposed in other states.

[bjf123]

Two separate discussions....

However, there is current proposed legislation in New York that would require athletes to be paid directly by the schools. The proposal is that 15% of all revenue the athletic department takes in would be set aside in a fund, and then paid directly to the athletes. I don’t doubt that other such legislation will be proposed in other states.

Thanks. The NY proposal also seems to assume that all D1 athletic departments are printing money and can afford to just give up hundreds of thousands or even millions for some of the P5 schools. That would result in the already unjustifiable tuitions to increase, or more “student fees” to jump. Bad idea.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Roadlife]

Reminds me of the Smothers brothers bit about our legislators.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9UYo5Y9GQ4

[JTG]

In effect, college fball and bball players are getting $50k. Plus, the best food, trips to foreign countries, plane travel, clothes, shoes, lodging.

[xubrew]

Well all I can say is that you are wrong if you don’t think that increasing costs, by having to directly pay student athletes, would not mean that cuts would happen elsewhere.

This statement is correct. If I were saying directly paying students would likely not result in cuts, I would be wrong.

The thing is, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that giving players their rights to their NIL won't result in sports being cut, and it won't. We aren't to the point of schools directly paying players yet. What I'd like to see happen is for the NCAA to stop digging it's heels in on this, make concessions, and hopefully get the goalposts moved back far enough to where paying athletes directly is not something that's being pushed for. I know that it's been introduced in South Carolina and New York State. I don't think the one in New York will pass because it's just too over the top and I don't think it fits in with what's technically legal, but the one in South Carolina might if it gets that far.

[XUGRAD80]

This statement is correct. If I were saying directly paying students would likely not result in cuts, I would be wrong.

The thing is, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that giving players their rights to their NIL won't result in sports being cut, and it won't. We aren't to the point of schools directly paying players yet. What I'd like to see happen is for the NCAA to stop digging it's heels in on this, make concessions, and hopefully get the goalposts moved back far enough to where paying athletes directly is not something that's being pushed for. I know that it's been introduced in South Carolina and New York State. I don't think the one in New York will pass because it's just too over the top and I don't think it fits in with what's technically legal, but the one in South Carolina might if it gets that far.

Well now YOU are making some sense, even if Drew still is living in a fantasy world. I agree, players being paid by an outside entity, for work they do for those entities, would not place a burden on the athletic departments that they could not afford.

However, the NCAA used to allow the student athletes to be paid for “work” they did for the universities. This led to people being paid to make sure the automatic sprinklers came on for the football field, and to people being paid for all kinds of “work” that they actually never did. So the NCAA passed rules saying that could not happen any longer. They even passed rules saying the scholarship athletes couldn’t get jobs outside the university, EC sues of the opportunity there for widespread cheating. I can see the same kind of things happening with this bill. I foresee a kid having his name used so that such and such dealership becomes the official dealership of “Teddy Ballgame” and he gets a cool 10K slipped to him. All legal and above board, declared as income, taxes taken out, etc. But in reality it’s just extra benefits being paid by a “friend of the program”. Legal under this bill, but the opportunities for cheating are way to widespread and I don’t think it’s in the best interest of college sports overall.

[94GRAD]

Well now YOU are making some sense, even if Drew still is living in a fantasy world. I agree, players being paid by an outside entity, for work they do for those entities, would not place a burden on the athletic departments that they could not afford.

However, the NCAA used to allow the student athletes to be paid for “work” they did for the universities. This led to people being paid to make sure the automatic sprinklers came on for the football field, and to people being paid for all kinds of “work” that they actually never did. So the NCAA passed rules saying that could not happen any longer. They even passed rules saying the scholarship athletes couldn’t get jobs outside the university, EC sues of the opportunity there for widespread cheating. I can see the same kind of things happening with this bill. I foresee a kid having his name used so that such and such dealership becomes the official dealership of “Teddy Ballgame” and he gets a cool 10K slipped to him. All legal and above board, declared as income, taxes taken out, etc. But in reality it’s just extra benefits being paid by a “friend of the program”. Legal under this bill, but the opportunities for cheating are way to widespread and I don’t think it’s in the best interest of college sports overall.

Cheaters are going to cheat no matter what. Why penalize the athletes who could/should be paid legitimately for their NIL's? Don't penalized the majority because of the cheating minority.

[XUGRAD80]

Cheaters are going to cheat no matter what. Why penalize the athletes who could/should be paid legitimately for their NIL's? Don't penalized the majority because of the cheating minority.

Because a national program like the CA. bill will place schools like Xavier at an even greater competitive disadvantage than they are already, and give other schools, like UL, UC, OSU, UK, Indiana, etc. an ever greater advantage than they already have. In my eyes, the goal should be to make things as even as possible and not to support programs that make it so that is next to impossible. Those people that are cheating can, and do, get caught and punished at times. Like I said, all this new program does is legalize it and move it outside the realm of what the NCAA can be involved in. I am willing to bet that the vast majority of D1 schools don’t want this.

I certainly understand that things are not currently equal. Yet schools like Xavier, Butler, ‘Nova, have found a way to actually compete for (and sometimes win) a national championship in basketball. In many other sports this has also happened, where individuals or schools, that are not the big state schools have found a way to compete successfully. If athletes start choosing their schools based on what the economic opportunity for them to make money is, I am afraid that will end. I’m realistic enough to understand that Xavier is really a small fish in a big ocean when it comes to outside sponsorship and support. I just don’t see how they can compete in that arena. In fact, I would say that it would be impossible for 90% of the D1 schools to compete against the other 10% and I don’t think that is what the NCAA wants. I certainly know it’s not what I want.

Perhaps the solution is to just allow the 60 or so schools that want to compete in that arena to break off and form their own association? Then let the others keep things as they are. Let every school choose what they want their athletic programs to stand for and promote.

[xubrew]

Because a national program like the CA. bill will place schools like Xavier at an even greater competitive disadvantage than they are already, and give other schools, like UL, UC, OSU, UK, Indiana, etc. an ever greater advantage than they already have. In my eyes, the goal should be to make things as even as possible and not to support programs that make it so that is next to impossible. Those people that are cheating can, and do, get caught and punished at times. Like I said, all this new program does is legalize it and move it outside the realm of what the NCAA can be involved in. I am willing to bet that the vast majority of D1 schools don’t want this.

I certainly understand that things are not currently equal. Yet schools like Xavier, Butler, ‘Nova, have found a way to actually compete for (and sometimes win) a national championship in basketball. In many other sports this has also happened, where individuals or schools, that are not the big state schools have found a way to compete successfully. If athletes start choosing their schools based on what the economic opportunity for them to make money is, I am afraid that will end. I’m realistic enough to understand that Xavier is really a small fish in a big ocean when it comes to outside sponsorship and support. I just don’t see how they can compete in that arena. In fact, I would say that it would be impossible for 90% of the D1 schools to compete against the other 10% and I don’t think that is what the NCAA wants. I certainly know it’s not what I want.

Perhaps the solution is to just allow the 60 or so schools that want to compete in that arena to break off and form their own association? Then let the others keep things as they are. Let every school choose what they want their athletic programs to stand for and promote.

I understand you're concerns about competitive balance, but I also think that it's too late for that. I do not foresee the NCAA winning if they try to dig in against that. I think they'd be much better off allowing players the rights to their NILs, and setting up a clearinghouse to oversee the endorsements to try and ensure that they are all legit. That way at least the NCAA would be able to maintain some level of control. Otherwise, the courts will eventually take it away from them and they'll probably lose a lot more in the process.

So, while you may not like the idea of players getting rights to their NILs, I guess my question is...well, do you want it to end up being even worse??

[Xavier]

I certainly understand that things are not currently equal. Yet schools like Xavier, Butler, ‘Nova, have found a way to actually compete for (and sometimes win) a national championship in basketball. In many other sports this has also happened, where individuals or schools, that are not the big state schools have found a way to compete successfully. If athletes start choosing their schools based on what the economic opportunity for them to make money is, I am afraid that will end. I’m realistic enough to understand that Xavier is really a small fish in a big ocean when it comes to outside sponsorship and support. I just don’t see how they can compete in that arena. In fact, I would say that it would be impossible for 90% of the D1 schools to compete against the other 10% and I don’t think that is what the NCAA wants. I certainly know it’s not what I want.



I think you’re looking at the current situation with rose colored glasses. Of the 300+ schools, I’d say almost every year there is about 10% that have a real shot at winning it all. Even worse in CFB. I don’t think it will be much different than it is now if kids get paid. The best solution I saw was a salary cap type situation. Even then, most teams will cheat (like they do now) and it won’t look much different than it is.

[Muskie]

Has anyone done a commerce clause analysis? It seems like that might be the NCAA's one argument that prevents states from doing this.

[XUGRAD80]

I think you’re looking at the current situation with rose colored glasses. Of the 300+ schools, I’d say almost every year there is about 10% that have a real shot at winning it all. Even worse in CFB. I don’t think it will be much different than it is now if kids get paid. The best solution I saw was a salary cap type situation. Even then, most teams will cheat (like they do now) and it won’t look much different than it is.

Actually, my fear is more along the lines of recruiting. Schools like Xavier will be even more at a disadvantage because they can’t offer the same opportunities to make cash that even the school across town can. It will almost force every school that does want to compete to seek out even more corporate partnerships and possibly even give those corporations a much larger say in what is happening in the program.

If money is the root of the problems in college sports.....how will bringing more money into it be a good thing?

[GOX]

My prediction is this:
First.There is no turning back. Players will get the rights to sell their IML.
Second, all the state legislatures will rush to pass on their own IML bills but each will add a unique wrinkle that it will make the legal landscape impossible to navigate and manage.
Third , Congress will assert commerce clause jurisdiction since travel, tv rights , merchandise sales, etc , cross state lines and there will be a federal law .
Fourth, the idea of schools being legally required to pay student athletes on top of scholarships will not happen.
So what will happen. A lot or a little depending on your school.
First, If you are now an elite program you will compete for the 5 Stars with non elite programs whose wealthy alumni will pay for the athletes IML . At the top, you will have more, not less competitive balance.
Second, athletes will stay longer in college if they are not first, second round NBA picks since they can make money and improve their draft status.
Third, if you are a Xavier, a great program with relatively smaller resources, you will cause the donor base to mimic the bigger schools, and not give their money to the school but to the entity buying IML rights. The may get 4 stars that they now don’t get.
Fourth, if you are a small school, or are not athletics driven, there will no change.
In the end , what will you see.
First, the competitive balance will look like it does today.
Second, the schools will lose much direct Alumni support diverted to buying IML rights and the other non revenue sports will suffer.
Third, it will be messy. The power will dramatically shift to the wealthy alumni who will be the recruiters/funders.
Fourth, the orchestra leaders will be the agents who will be working the kids , apparel companies, and the Alumni.
And you know what that will look like.

[xubrew]

Has anyone done a commerce clause analysis? It seems like that might be the NCAA's one argument that prevents states from doing this.

This is an EXCELLENT question! To which I’m guessing the answer to is No.

[Olsingledigit]

My prediction is this:
First.There is no turning back. Players will get the rights to sell their IML.
Second, all the state legislatures will rush to pass on their own IML bills but each will add a unique wrinkle that it will make the legal landscape impossible to navigate and manage.
Third , Congress will assert commerce clause jurisdiction since travel, tv rights , merchandise sales, etc , cross state lines and there will be a federal law .
Fourth, the idea of schools being legally required to pay student athletes on top of scholarships will not happen.
So what will happen. A lot or a little depending on your school.
First, If you are now an elite program you will compete for the 5 Stars with non elite programs whose wealthy alumni will pay for the athletes IML . At the top, you will have more, not less competitive balance.
Second, athletes will stay longer in college if they are not first, second round NBA picks since they can make money and improve their draft status.
Third, if you are a Xavier, a great program with relatively smaller resources, you will cause the donor base to mimic the bigger schools, and not give their money to the school but to the entity buying IML rights. The may get 4 stars that they now don’t get.
Fourth, if you are a small school, or are not athletics driven, there will no change.
In the end , what will you see.
First, the competitive balance will look like it does today.
Second, the schools will lose much direct Alumni support diverted to buying IML rights and the other non revenue sports will suffer.
Third, it will be messy. The power will dramatically shift to the wealthy alumni who will be the recruiters/funders.
Fourth, the orchestra leaders will be the agents who will be working the kids , apparel companies, and the Alumni.
And you know what that will look like.

The missing inputs are two:
1. What happens to the athletes (the majority of them) who do NOT get paid because they have no value? There will likely be a lot of dissension and likely lawsuits.
2. Title IX is the real question. Even though the players will get the money and not the schools you expect a lot of litigation in this area too.

[bjf123]

The missing inputs are two:
1. What happens to the athletes (the majority of them) who do NOT get paid because they have no value? There will likely be a lot of dissension and likely lawsuits.
2. Title IX is the real question. Even though the players will get the money and not the schools you expect a lot of litigation in this area too.

There will definitely be some dissension when the star QB is showing up in his new Maserati while the O-Line that lets him shine aren’t getting anything. Might start getting some “Look out!” blocks from that line.

The Title IX issue will be interesting if the schools are still meeting the requirements based on scholarships, or whatever else might be factored in. If some of the male players are getting big bucks from endorsement deals, how is that the fault of the school? They’re not paying anyone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[surfxu]

And then there's THIS take: https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2019/10/09/college-recruiting-faces-seismic-change-if-ncaa-allows-endorsements/3908164002/

Specifically this paragraph: "In his sport, Plona could see name, image and likeness compensation helping schools without football, such as Marquette and Xavier. That allows boosters and local companies to focus their contributions on basketball.

“The Creightons of the world. The Wichita States of the world,” Plona said. “There could be some programs that really get some of those significant donors or boosters or owners of small companies around the area, and all of a sudden, the basketball kids could be their top guys.”

[paulxu]

Skykyline Chili.

[xubrew]

Skykyline Chili.

Gold Star!! It's better. It just is. Everyone who thinks otherwise is wrong!!

[muskiefan82]

Skykyline Chili.

You might be on to something there....

[noteggs]

Skykyline Chili.

Pub reps! That’s f*ing funny!

[xudash]

Skykyline Chili.

Well done Paul!

[X-band '01]

Skykyline Chili.

I see what you did there...

[X-band '01]

Florida the latest to consider allowing college athletes to profit (off of NIL) (https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/27920263/florida-latest-consider-allowing-college-athletes-profit)

[xubrew]

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/27957981/ncaa-votes-allow-athletes-profit-likeness

[X-band '01]

Starting the process doesn't amount to jack yet. When the NCAA has a more concrete plan to unveil, then I'll pay attention.

[Xavgrad08]

Florida has signed the bill which will allow athletes to be compensated based on name, likeness etc. https://www.foxnews.com/sports/florida-governor-signs-college-athlete-nil-compensation-bill.amp