PDA

View Full Version : NCAA & Monetizing a Name/Image/Likeness



LTownZag
10-09-2019, 11:35 AM
As most of the folks on the board probably are at least vaguely aware, the NCAA nationally is under some pressure from some politicians/press/pundits/players to allow NCAA student athletes to compete in college while simultaneously receiving payment for licensing the use of their names, images, or likeness to companies such as video game makers, t-shirt sellers, poster companies, etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01n6yfWgbXE
Like most of the modern culture war type issues, it seems like both sides retreat to their corners and shout rhetoric that doesn't even seem to be speaking the same language. Mark Few recently was interviewed by Jeff Goodman and Few's 3 minute long answer included a few phrases that went "viral" online as he criticized the California state governor Gavin Newsom for making this a pet political issue since it polled well and Newsom has national aspirations.

I'm curious if anyone else agrees with my thoughts on the issue, which is one I hadn't thought much about until Monday.

1. Adults should be able to make mutually-voluntary consenting arrangements between and among each other. If you are 18+, you're an adult. If you choose to play in any league exclusively as an unpaid amateur, you are not being "exploited" or victimized. You are free to stop the entire arrangement at any time, in order to pursue anything else, including paying professionally in a for-profit league abroad (during year 1) or the NBA (any time after year 1).

2. Only a tiny fraction of D-1 sports programs even produce enough revenue to cover their own costs. The number of student athletes in a given year who could realistically make money selling companies the rights to their name or image is very small. There would be an enormous concentration of these players at the already most powerful and prosperous mens basketball and football teams. Even if a video game maker paid every (or most) NCAA players a tiny amount each year, the amount paid to the Zion/Rui/Baker Mayfield types would be a 1000x greater. Elite recruits would factor in a school's network connections for monetizing their images before deciding where to go. In short, this would further concentrate elite talent among the top programs with wealthy boosters and business connections. You'd see recruits each promised a marketing "package" that would purchase the rights to his NIL for each year in the NCAA, so there'd be a de-facto auction over which teams could pay their stars the most.


3. The situation of monetizable/marketable athletes being "trapped" in amateur status before they go to the NFL or NBA is already being solved by players choosing to go overseas for the 1 required season pre NBA, and by the NBA and G-league potentially soon allowing 18yr old high school seniors to do a year in the NBA "minors" while getting paid. See RJ Hampton or Lamello ball for recent star players who said no to the NCAA and got paid immediately out of high school. This option is easier and more lucrative than ever. (There's really not a market to sell name/image of other athletes and sports outside mens basketball and football). I don't know enough about football and the NFL and foreign football leagues to know what options and markets exist for elite high school footballers who want to skip the NCAA and get paid immediately.

4. I understand why the NCAA has been reluctant to address this. Why would they be eager to? The age restrictions placed on participation by the NBA (1 yr) and NFL (3 yrs) have made the NCAA nearly the only game in town for elite high schoolers. That's not longer the case, and even when it was, it didn't mean college players were being "exploited." The rise of foreign leagues and the social media fame of younger players may force the NCAA's hand and compel them to reach a compromise or suffer more RJ Hampton defections. Consequently, this is a non-issue unworthy of the virtuous hand-wringing it receives. It should be allowed to resolve itself and any top down political mandates will be primarily in the service of the specific politicians and the powerful school programs which know they'd benefit from new rules.


My final thought is that much of the rhetoric around this issue ignores the enormous value added to the lifetime earnings of these players via their unpaid attendance at major sports schools. An intern or an apprentice might be unpaid, but they understand the value in learning from elite practitioners of a craft. Look at Domantas Sabonis or Rui Hachimura for examples. Either could have gotten paid at age 16 or 17 or 18 by playing basketball in any number of leagues outside the NBA, which don't have an age limit. This would have prevented them from learning and improving their marketable skills by the world class staff at GU - a tradeoff they chose not to make. Is it my place to say they opted for "exploitation"? Domas WAS playing in Europe and chose to forgo the default salary and be unpaid in order to maintain his amateur status. I'm sure he did that with the guidance of his father and other basketball gurus and smart folks who knew it was in his lifetime earning interest. He sufficiently valued the opportunity to play unpaid at GU or a similar basketball NCAA program that he chose to not be paid when he could have. So was he "paid" by Gonzaga? or "exploited" by Gonzaga? Clearly his lifetime earning potential, his marketable skillset, his network of NBA mentors, and his reputation were all massively improved by 2 years "unpaid" at GU.

gon2mt
10-09-2019, 11:54 AM
FYI there is an interesting discussion on ssf about Few's interview more specifically which also addresses some of the points in this thread

bdmiller7
10-09-2019, 11:59 AM
As most of the folks on the board probably are at least vaguely aware, the NCAA nationally is under some pressure from some politicians/press/pundits/players to allow NCAA student athletes to compete in college while simultaneously receiving payment for licensing the use of their names, images, or likeness to companies such as video game makers, t-shirt sellers, poster companies, etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01n6yfWgbXE
Like most of the modern culture war type issues, it seems like both sides retreat to their corners and shout rhetoric that doesn't even seem to be speaking the same language. Mark Few recently was interviewed by Jeff Goodman and Few's 3 minute long answer included a few phrases that went "viral" online as he criticized the California state governor Gavin Newsom for making this a pet political issue since it polled well and Newsom has national aspirations.

I'm curious if anyone else agrees with my thoughts on the issue, which is one I hadn't thought much about until Monday.

1. Adults should be able to make mutually-voluntary consenting arrangements between and among each other. If you are 18+, you're an adult. If you choose to play in any league exclusively as an unpaid amateur, you are not being "exploited" or victimized. You are free to stop the entire arrangement at any time, in order to pursue anything else, including paying professionally in a for-profit league abroad (during year 1) or the NBA (any time after year 1).

2. Only a tiny fraction of D-1 sports programs even produce enough revenue to cover their own costs. The number of student athletes in a given year who could realistically make money selling companies the rights to their name or image is very small. There would be an enormous concentration of these players at the already most powerful and prosperous mens basketball and football teams. Even if a video game maker paid every (or most) NCAA players a tiny amount each year, the amount paid to the Zion/Rui/Baker Mayfield types would be a 1000x greater. Elite recruits would factor in a school's network connections for monetizing their images before deciding where to go. In short, this would further concentrate elite talent among the top programs with wealthy boosters and business connections. You'd see recruits each promised a marketing "package" that would purchase the rights to his NIL for each year in the NCAA, so there'd be a de-facto auction over which teams could pay their stars the most.


3. The situation of monetizable/marketable athletes being "trapped" in amateur status before they go to the NFL or NBA is already being solved by players choosing to go overseas for the 1 required season pre NBA, and by the NBA and G-league potentially soon allowing 18yr old high school seniors to do a year in the NBA "minors" while getting paid. See RJ Hampton or Lamello ball for recent star players who said no to the NCAA and got paid immediately out of high school. This option is easier and more lucrative than ever. (There's really not a market to sell name/image of other athletes and sports outside mens basketball and football). I don't know enough about football and the NFL and foreign football leagues to know what options and markets exist for elite high school footballers who want to skip the NCAA and get paid immediately.

4. I understand why the NCAA has been reluctant to address this. Why would they be eager to? The age restrictions placed on participation by the NBA (1 yr) and NFL (3 yrs) have made the NCAA nearly the only game in town for elite high schoolers. That's not longer the case, and even when it was, it didn't mean college players were being "exploited." The rise of foreign leagues and the social media fame of younger players may force the NCAA's hand and compel them to reach a compromise or suffer more RJ Hampton defections. Consequently, this is a non-issue unworthy of the virtuous hand-wringing it receives. It should be allowed to resolve itself and any top down political mandates will be primarily in the service of the specific politicians and the powerful school programs which know they'd benefit from new rules.


My final thought is that much of the rhetoric around this issue ignores the enormous value added to the lifetime earnings of these players via their unpaid attendance at major sports schools. An intern or an apprentice might be unpaid, but they understand the value in learning from elite practitioners of a craft. Look at Domantas Sabonis or Rui Hachimura for examples. Either could have gotten paid at age 16 or 17 or 18 by playing basketball in any number of leagues outside the NBA, which don't have an age limit. Domas WAS playing in Europe and chose to forgo the default salary and be unpaid in order to maintain his amateur status. I'm sure he did that with the guidance of his father and other basketball gurus and smart folks who knew it was in his lifetime earning interest. He sufficiently valued the opportunity to play unpaid at GU or a similar basketball NCAA program that he chose to not be paid when he could have. So was he "paid" by Gonzaga? or "exploited" by Gonzaga? Clearly his lifetime earning potential, his marketable skillset, his network of NBA mentors, and his reputation were all massively improved by 2 years "unpaid" at GU.

I agree 100% with every point you make. The number of people currently benefitting from this system far outnumbers the few who feel they are being exploited. None of them are forced into this. They also receive benefits far greater than just tuition. They have excellent coaching, trainers, facilities, gear, and at the big schools better dorms and food than any of the general students could get. Plus the exposure of playing in college can get them serious endorsement money when they do turn pro.

OCzag
10-09-2019, 12:00 PM
Thoughtful and good post LTown. Generally, I do not have an issue with student-athletes being able to make income off of their NIL but the mechanics of it really need to be fleshed out and adopted throughout the NCAA. While i can see the argument many make that at least this state legislation could at least spur the NCAA to act, the result and discrepancies in the interim could result in a lot of mayhem or bad/awful/bizarre results for certain schools and the NCAA in general - this is particularly true if states have different requirements (as they often do) and if certain states "race to the bottom" by giving athletes the most rights off their NIL (similar to Delaware with their favorable corporate laws). As someone who compares state statutory requirements often, I'd be shocked if they were uniform especially considering states are pushing them through. I could be wrong and would be happy to be proved otherwise, but even the proposed effective dates of these laws differ.

I think this was one of the points Coach Few was getting to - that he is ok with NIL compensation but it should be handled appropriately and not by individual states/politicians. Unfortunately, I feel like how he got to his position at the end of the clip and how it went viral is unfortunate. I don't REALLY think it'll make a large impact on recruiting or his/GU's image as some talking heads suggest, but I do wish he conveyed his point in a different manner.

Ultimately, my impression is that this can/will cause a lot of headaches for states, schools, athletes, and the NCAA for something that impacts a VERY small amount of student athletes.

johno
10-09-2019, 12:01 PM
Spokesman Review article on Few's comments pertaining to the new California Law:

https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2019/oct/08/gonzaga-coach-mark-fews-nil-comments-prompt-strong/

“What I find totally disappointing and just disgusting is that a governor is wasting his time grandstanding around in something that he really doesn’t understand when .00001 percent of his constituents are going to be impacted by this,” Few said. “He should probably stay in his lane, like I tell my players, figure out homelessness and I think he has a state that borders Mexico and get that mess figured out. And the budget, and some things like that.”

CPkZagFan
10-09-2019, 12:18 PM
Spokesman Review article on Few's comments pertaining to the new California Law:

https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2019/oct/08/gonzaga-coach-mark-fews-nil-comments-prompt-strong/

“What I find totally disappointing and just disgusting is that a governor is wasting his time grandstanding around in something that he really doesn’t understand when .00001 percent of his constituents are going to be impacted by this,” Few said. “He should probably stay in his lane, like I tell my players, figure out homelessness and I think he has a state that borders Mexico and get that mess figured out. And the budget, and some things like that.”


I am 110% on board with Few's comments. He is not against athletes getting to enjoy some monetary benefits but unless this handled carefully, all the "big boys" like Duke, North Carolina, Kansas, etc. will have an even greater pull for recruits.

I am grateful that Few is willing to say the "emperor has no clothes". I think the Calif. governor should concentrate on cleaning up his streets and state before he continues to expand the "nanny state" to include athletics.

RenoZag
10-09-2019, 12:25 PM
See this thread in "General Basketball" for additional discussion:

http://guboards.spokesmanreview.com/showthread.php?66441-CA-becomes-first-state-to-let-college-athletes-make-money-defying-NCAA

CB4
10-09-2019, 02:46 PM
Few made comments about the governor but then agreed athletes should be paid based on likeness. His point was that the CA Legislature should let the NCAA and people in the industry regulate themselves. Typically a fine argument that I agree with. But the NCAA has that opportunity via the CA Legislation because it doesn't apply for a few years. They have time to set parameters and rules. The CA law is the catalyst for that. Without the new CA law and it's effective date this issue would be slow rolled and dragged out well beyond the effective date, maintaining the status quo longer than reasonable.

ZagaZags
10-09-2019, 03:21 PM
I am 110% on board with Few's comments. He is not against athletes getting to enjoy some monetary benefits but unless this handled carefully, all the "big boys" like Duke, North Carolina, Kansas, etc. will have an even greater pull for recruits.

I am grateful that Few is willing to say the "emperor has no clothes". I think the Calif. governor should concentrate on cleaning up his streets and state before he continues to expand the "nanny state" to include athletics.

+ 100,000,000 :cheers:

Hoopaholic
10-09-2019, 05:59 PM
What I didn’t ubnderstand, now granted I am not an attorney but did stay at a holiday inn once, is alll the talk about kids being able sign their jerseys etc to make money

Isn’t most if not all universities name and logo trademarked..therefore without the school permission making profit off as school owned product would be illegal?

And if the university says ok are they not contributing something of value outside the IRS guidelines of non taxable items while going to school (tuition and books)

And if a university says ok, how much is the name on the jersey valued versus signature of a player?

And the irs tax implications on pell grants etc will all have to be adjusted and taken into consideration and will this have a negative impact on scholarship/grant funding opportunities for some of the student athletes thus either driving up their need for contribution or driving up cost of money by the university?


For me if they are going downt his route, then the players who are getting added benefits above and beyond all other student athletes should pay for those services.....flights down to trainers and tutors

I read that the average university pays over 94,000 per D1 student in football and basketball yet only pays 13,000 towards all others. Seems to me if going to allow them to become semi pro that those costs should be borne by the individuals who now have become semi pro

Zagceo
10-09-2019, 08:31 PM
Spokesman Review article on Few's comments pertaining to the new California Law:

https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2019/oct/08/gonzaga-coach-mark-fews-nil-comments-prompt-strong/

“What I find totally disappointing and just disgusting is that a governor is wasting his time grandstanding around in something that he really doesn’t understand when .00001 percent of his constituents are going to be impacted by this,” Few said. “He should probably stay in his lane, like I tell my players, figure out homelessness and I think he has a state that borders Mexico and get that mess figured out. And the budget, and some things like that.”

as a california resident...I couldn't agree more with Coach Few....love the stay in his lane comment.

CB4
10-09-2019, 11:43 PM
Isn’t most if not all universities name and logo trademarked..therefore without the school permission making profit off as school owned product would be illegal?

Anyone can sign an article of clothing or photograph or other item and resell it. There are no trademark issues in that regard. Go on eBay and type in sports memorabilia

And if the university says ok are they not contributing something of value outside the IRS guidelines of non taxable items while going to school (tuition and books)

If the school gives the athlete like 100 free jerseys not for game use then yeah I guess it is a taxable benefit, but that's not allowed under the CA law and would violate NCAA rules. Schools still aren't allowed to pay players or provide things of value outside the NCAA guidelines... Stipends, food, travel, sports gear, etc.


And if a university says ok, how much is the name on the jersey valued versus signature of a player?

The law doesn't require schools to give players a cut of jersey sales. The law doesn't allow schools to sell apparel and give a kick back to the athlete. The law deals with student athletes being able to profit from their name and likeness from third parties. There is no revenue sharing between college and athlete. If a school wants to sell a Hachimura numbered jersey for more money than a generic jersey they can do that.

And the irs tax implications on pell grants etc will all have to be adjusted and taken into consideration and will this have a negative impact on scholarship/grant funding opportunities for some of the student athletes thus either driving up their need for contribution or driving up cost of money by the university?

If a player becomes ineligible for a Pell Grant because he makes too money through endorsements then he's better off. So is society not having to pay grants to people who can make the money to pay for themselves.


For me if they are going downt his route, then the players who are getting added benefits above and beyond all other student athletes should pay for those services.....flights down to trainers and tutors

The university has no extra costs or no reduction in revenue due to athletes being able to sell their likeness. The bargain for college athletics is free tuition for a student's athletic services. That's the deal between student athletes and the college. I don't understand how now allowing students to make money on the side, separate from the school, means the school should cut scholarship benefits or make people pay. That's really silly. Itd also be a great way to never get good recruits anymore.

I read that the average university pays over 94,000 per D1 student in football and basketball yet only pays 13,000 towards all others. Seems to me if going to allow them to become semi pro that those costs should be borne by the individuals who now have become semi pro

Return on investment. Basketball and football make money for the schools. Tennis doesnt have a TV deal. Asking players to pay to play college sports because they have the opportunity to earn money on the side (most won't earn very much, Hachimura would have though) is another great way to never get a good recruit anymore and for all the top young American talent to go to NZ or Australia or some other country to develop. This country imports talent we've never exported it.

...

ZagDad84
10-10-2019, 01:21 AM
I read that the average university pays over 94,000 per D1 student in football and basketball yet only pays 13,000 towards all others. Seems to me if going to allow them to become semi pro that those costs should be borne by the individuals who now have become semi pro

I am not a scholarship expert by any means but I do have some experience and a quick 10 minute google search does wonders to obtain accurate information. In simplistic terms, Title IX essentially says if you give a scholarship to a male athlete, the same number of scholarships must be given to women athletes, no matter the tv package, the attendance, and the revenue generation. The problem is that a D-1 (FBS) football program allows for up to 85 fully funded scholarships. There is no equivalent female sport, so to make up the difference, the NCAA may allow a women's more scholarships than an equivalent men's program. In D-1, Mbb get a maximum of 13 scholarships and Wbb get a maximum of 15 scholarships. Some of the sports with greater differences are Men's track (12.6 scholarships) compared to women's track (18 scholarships) and men's volleyball (4.5 scholarships) compared to women's volleyball (12 scholarships). The primary way schools (with football) eliminate the difference in scholarships is to offer more women's sports (with scholarships) than men's sports. While most of the basketball athletes (men and women) receive full scholarships and most of the football players receive full scholarships, most of the "lower" tier sports offer only partial scholarships, so they can give more players on the squad at least some financial assistance. For example, a good friend of mine's son got a D-1 scholarship offer that paid the tuition, books and fees but did not pay for room and board. Somebody else on the team got the room and board portion of the scholarship.

I would assume that the above quoted scholarship value per player has nothing to due with return on investment but more likely has to due with the number of fully funded scholarships divided by the number of players on the team as simple as that.

ZagDad

MileHigh
10-10-2019, 06:07 AM
[QUOTE
I read that the average university pays over 94,000 per D1 student in football and basketball yet only pays 13,000 towards all others. Seems to me if going to allow them to become semi pro that those costs should be borne by the individuals who now have become semi pro[/QUOTE]



All that $94000 reflects is the total athletic budget of the sport divided by the number of athletes participating, they do not reflect what if costs the University for each additional player that participates. Football and Basketball have big expenses but also big revenue.
At the top 25 or so football and basketball schools they are making hundreds of thousands of dollars in pure profit per athlete.

All the new legislation does is allow players to make money "on the side" from autographs, commercials, endorsements, camps, etc. Does not effect in any way how the student/university relationship is funded (scholarship + stipend)

LongIslandZagFan
10-10-2019, 07:44 AM
Not sure how this doesn't open a Sam Gilbert-sized hole in the basic fairness of the sports. What is to keep Phil Knight from making sure the best players play at Oregon every single year? He can pay them a TON of money and call it monetizing their likeness.

I think there can be a middle ground somewhere, but honestly, the legislation doesn't remotely address this.

LTownZag
10-10-2019, 07:55 AM
All the new legislation does is allow players to make money "on the side" from autographs, commercials, endorsements, camps, etc. Does not effect in any way how the student/university relationship is funded (scholarship + stipend)

Milehigh has proven to be a smart guy, so I imagine you understand this already, but:

These supposed "on the side" perks to a player would turn into the main menu item among all the top recruits.

For example - the next Zion or Wiseman or Jalen Suggs will be told by school A "We have a buyer, or group of wealthy business friends/boosters/alums committed to purchase 4 million dollars worth of your jerseys next year, "on the side" if you come here."

Then school B has a recruiting staff, boosters, and rich businessmen than commit to buy 5 million "on the side" and so the auction commences.

Regardless of how these perks are framed as being a side dish in theory, they would be the main course for the 5* guys.

willandi
10-10-2019, 08:04 AM
Not sure how this doesn't open a Sam Gilbert-sized hole in the basic fairness of the sports. What is to keep Phil Knight from making sure the best players play at Oregon every single year? He can pay them a TON of money and call it monetizing their likeness.

I think there can be a middle ground somewhere, but honestly, the legislation doesn't remotely address this.


Milehigh has proven to be a smart guy, so I imagine you understand this already, but:

These supposed "on the side" perks to a player would turn into the main menu item among all the top recruits.

For example - the next Zion or Wiseman or Jalen Suggs will be told by school A "We have a buyer, or group of wealthy business friends/boosters/alums committed to purchase 4 million dollars worth of your jerseys next year, "on the side" if you come here."

Then school B has a recruiting staff, boosters, and rich businessmen than commit to buy 5 million "on the side" and so the auction commences.

Regardless of how these perks are framed as being a side dish in theory, they would be the main course for the 5* guys.

That is where I see a problem too. There is NOTHING to stop rich alumni fro paying lots of money to bring recruits in. The reason that the NCAA has the rules they have is because of times in the past when rich alumni paid athletes to go to their school. It was a good idea then, and remains a good idea.

The first premise presented was " If you are 18+, you're an adult. If you choose to play in any league exclusively as an unpaid amateur, you are not being "exploited" or victimized. You are free to stop the entire arrangement at any time, in order to pursue anything else, including paying professionally in a for-profit league abroad (during year 1) or the NBA (any time after year 1)."

I agree with this 100%. If you want to make money. Go pro.

mgadfly
10-10-2019, 08:40 AM
For example - the next Zion or Wiseman or Jalen Suggs will be told by school A "We have a buyer, or group of wealthy business friends/boosters/alums committed to purchase 4 million dollars worth of your jerseys next year, "on the side" if you come here."

Then school B has a recruiting staff, boosters, and rich businessmen than commit to buy 5 million "on the side" and so the auction commences.

Regardless of how these perks are framed as being a side dish in theory, they would be the main course for the 5* guys.

And what's wrong with this?

This gets at the question that the OP ignores here.

Why should the NCAA be able to fix the price of labor for sports nationally? Why not make it a free market?
Shouldn't adults be able to make as much money off their talent as they can?
Why do we care that female shot putters won't make as much as 5-star quarterbacks?

Is the arrangement mutually and voluntary when giant institutions (including state governments) are fixing the price of labor and setting arbitrary rules that prohibits them from signing an agreement with certain terms (like the purchase of five million jerseys or even the ability to do a local TV commercial)?
Shouldn't the institutions themselves be able to set the terms of their contracts with players? (Right now they aren't - the NCAA sets the terms)
Should the NCAA set the terms that are acceptable for coach salaries? Why not?
Should institutions be able to approach minors and begin negotiating the terms of a scholarship?
Is this even a contractual relationship to begin with as the terms are set and there is no real negotiating going on at all?


Mark Few should have stayed in his lane. The California legislature sent a bill to a governor who signed it. It has years before it is implemented so that the NCAA can do what I hope Mark Few was trying to get at - which is self regulate a national scheme that in some way maintains competitive balance.

But competitive balance shouldn't be the goal. It certainly isn't when we are talking about coaching salaries. And that's the hypocrisy that drives me crazy. Our concern as fans is that we want it to be like a pro-league with a salary cap so that it isn't Duke vs Oregon every year for the national title with a team of guys making $5 million per season. That's a legitimate concern. But if you are a non-basketball fan observing this from the outside, you have two pools of labor with completely different rules. This isn't a freedom of contract issue. It's a price fixing scheme and states and citizens that aren't basketball fans get to address real or perceived injustices through the laws just like basketball fans. And our competitive balance concern isn't going to be their concern. Basketball (and more so football) should have done a better job addressing this a long time ago so that the public didn't get involved to begin with.

zagfan24
10-10-2019, 08:46 AM
Some meandering thoughts:

1) Something has to change. The status quo isn't working, and the fact that a fix to the system is complicated isn't a good reason to keep things the way they are now.

2) There is currently almost no parity in college sports. Yes, paying players for their likeness creates a new problem, but it's hard to imagine college football and basketball being any more top-heavy than they are now.

3) This issue is incredibly complex, to the point that it's almost mind boggling. You have, in no particular order, the following conflicts: public vs private schools. tuition "value" versus actual costs. college rules vs pro league rules (i.e. the age at which a player can realistically turn pro). revenue vs non revenue producing programs. men's vs women's sports. d1 vs d2/d3. celebrity players vs anonymous players.

4) There is a huge lack of incentive for the people at the NCAA level to change anything. So while I don't agree that politicians at the state level are in an ideal position to exert influence or opinion, the reality is that those making money now are also probably the ones who ideally would possess the knowledge and power to make changes....and why would they?

5) Shoe companies, with the transformation of the AAU circuit into EYBL programs, already have an outside influence on high school and college sports. That genie can't be put back in the bottle.

6) There is an important role that poverty and privilege play in all of this. I'm not going to open up a Crosby (RIP) style discussion about this, but it's also hard for many to understand the viewpoint of some college athletes who grow up in poor socioeconomic conditions when talking about the relative value of money.

LTownZag
10-10-2019, 09:21 AM
And what's wrong with this?

This gets at the question that the OP ignores here.

Why should the NCAA be able to fix the price of labor for sports nationally? Why not make it a free market?

I do not ignore that question. The NCAA should be able to set the limits for play within their own league, and should not be able to stop rival leagues from existing. If Zion had wanted to spend last year training on his own and doing private for-profit dunk exhibitions, poster signings, instagram live streamings, or playing pro in Europe or elsewhere for a million dollars or more, he could have.



Shouldn't adults be able to make as much money off their talent as they can?
Why do we care that female shot putters won't make as much as 5-star quarterbacks?

1 - They should be free to choose their own career path, which might involve 1-4 years of nominally "unpaid" time at a university, and might not. I have no problem with the university, NCAA, or any other training/apprenticeship/value-adding program not paying its participants, as long as no pay was ever promised.
2. I don't care that shot putters of any gender won't make as much as 5-star 5* QBs or point guards. Who is the "we" that supposedly cares? Do they?




Is the arrangement mutually and voluntary when giant institutions (including state governments) are fixing the price of labor and setting arbitrary rules that prohibits them from signing an agreement with certain terms (like the purchase of five million jerseys or even the ability to do a local TV commercial)?

Yes, it is mutual and voluntary. No price is "fixed". With respect, I'm not sure you know what arbitrary means, since you use it in a way that specifies achieving a strategic goal.

LongIslandZagFan
10-10-2019, 09:44 AM
I just fear that basketball is going to be like college football is now... where 5 or 6 teams that compete year in year out. Deep pocketed donors will pay the best players and disguise it as paying for their likeness being used.

If anyone can explain to me how this WOULDN'T happen, I am all ears.

Sadly, the people this is "supposed to help" in some of the less popular sports, are going to see nothing still and football and basketball players (at only a select number of schools) will be getting rich.

mgadfly
10-10-2019, 09:45 AM
I actually don't think you know what arbitrary means. I litigate it quite regularly. Arbitrary rules can certainly have a "strategic goal." My argument is that the rules are arbitrary from a value perspective because it, at least arguably, is based on power/institutional whim/is unrestrained and autocratic rather than based on actual values or reason.

Just because there is a value, doesn't mean the value/goal/what-have-you isn't arbitrary itself.

A king can have a strategic goal of making sure no cousins are ever in a position to challenge his authority. He can have an arbitrary rule that prohibits red hair so that he can execute 95% of his cousins. The red hair rule may arguably have a value based backing, may be to obtain a strategic goal, but would still be arbitrary.

Our placing of our interests over the interests of players, the public, etc... is arbitrary and not really based on logic or reason. You are free to disagree with that, but you aren't free to redefine what arbitrary actually means in an ad hominem attack.

The price is fixed. It's tuition plus a little stipend. You give no support for why it isn't fixed and every objective piece of evidence is contrary to your statement.

State governments and institutions shouldn't be fixing that price and then saying that if they don't like the price they should go do something else. And they certainly shouldn't do it without oversight from a democratically elected legislature and governor. That's exactly the way we (as in society if that wasn't clear, or the citizens that make up our electorate) decided these issues SHOULD be addressed.

I don't care who makes what either, but one of the arguments you see here is some generalized fear that someone will make too much (not coaches, they can't make too much) but that some 5-star quality player will make too much money or something and it needs to be fair. That isn't free market (and neither is states acting through their universities to set the salaries of labor).

And the NCAA should be able to set the price of its labor. And if one of the states that prop up the current price fixing says "forget that" we all shouldn't sit around all shocked and crying when all the good athletes play for millions of dollars per season in the California (and other states passing similar laws) Coalition of Universities Who Aren't Going to Continue to Price Fix League (CCUWAGCPFL).

LTownZag
10-10-2019, 10:01 AM
I actually don't think you know what arbitrary means. I litigate it quite regularly. Arbitrary rules can certainly have a "strategic goal." My argument is that the rules are arbitrary from a value perspective because it, at least arguably, is based on power/institutional whim/is unrestrained and autocratic rather than based on actual values or reason.

Just because there is a value, doesn't mean the value/goal/what-have-you isn't arbitrary itself.


https://i.ibb.co/HX2G5Wx/Screen-Shot-2019-10-10-at-9-59-31-AM.png

mgadfly
10-10-2019, 10:07 AM
I'm not sure what you're getting at. If you are saying that something can't be arbitrary if there is any reason for it (even if the reason is arbitrary), thank God you've never been one of my judges or arbitrators. I'd have never won a case where I alleged a work rule or policy was arbitrary.

LTownZag
10-10-2019, 10:13 AM
I just fear that basketball is going to be like college football is now... where 5 or 6 teams that compete year in year out. Deep pocketed donors will pay the best players and disguise it as paying for their likeness being used.

If anyone can explain to me how this WOULDN'T happen, I am all ears.

Sadly, the people this is "supposed to help" in some of the less popular sports, are going to see nothing still and football and basketball players (at only a select number of schools) will be getting rich.

Basketball is very different from football in a logistics and material support viewpoint, which is what is required to produce a top program. Fielding a top-10 football team requires dozens of players, special teams, more niche trainers, and a far larger staff and budget than it takes to run a top-10 basketball team or program. It's why you'd never see a national championship level football team from an equivalent of Gonzaga, Butler, Wichita State, etc.

I'm not sure if that difference makes things *easier* or *harder* for rich schools buy their way into a final 4 at a school with $$$ that could effectively pay top players for their marketing name and image.

I actually think it's at least plausible that paying players for a year or two in college would make it more likely for less established programs to land a very elite recruiting class and make a final 4. You'd just need enough money from a rich benefactor to buy the services of a few elite freshman for 6 months. Some non-powerhouse basketball school like Yale or Boston College or Stanford could easily round up a few billionaire alumni and make that happen in Basketball, but the logistical/institutional/$$$ challenge in football would be far greater.

Hoopaholic
10-10-2019, 10:37 AM
Some meandering thoughts:

1) Something has to change. The status quo isn't working, and the fact that a fix to the system is complicated isn't a good reason to keep things the way they are now.
Please expl;ain to me why "status quo": is not working.......while some are cheating doesnt mean the other 93% that are abiding by rules should be considered not working

2) There is currently almost no parity in college sports. Yes, paying players for their likeness creates a new problem, but it's hard to imagine college football and basketball being any more top-heavy than they are now.

We can agree to disagree on this statement.....there is a ton of parity in the vast majority of college sports.......now you want to isolate football I might agree but the rest of the college sports I think there is great parity and opportunity for success

3) This issue is incredibly complex, to the point that it's almost mind boggling. You have, in no particular order, the following conflicts: public vs private schools. tuition "value" versus actual costs. college rules vs pro league rules (i.e. the age at which a player can realistically turn pro). revenue vs non revenue producing programs. men's vs women's sports. d1 vs d2/d3. celebrity players vs anonymous players.


4) There is a huge lack of incentive for the people at the NCAA level to change anything. So while I don't agree that politicians at the state level are in an ideal position to exert influence or opinion, the reality is that those making money now are also probably the ones who ideally would possess the knowledge and power to make changes....and why would they?

5) Shoe companies, with the transformation of the AAU circuit into EYBL programs, already have an outside influence on high school and college sports. That genie can't be put back in the bottle.
I disagree that this issue cannot be changed......question is is their the will to change

6) There is an important role that poverty and privilege play in all of this. I'm not going to open up a Crosby (RIP) style discussion about this, but it's also hard for many to understand the viewpoint of some college athletes who grow up in poor socioeconomic conditions when talking about the relative value of money.


and I see there is very little discussion as it pertains to tax payers who fund and support these universities through mandated taking of my hard earned money......why should my tax dollars go to support adults who can now make money while leveraging and using my tax paying dollars as a farce to attend "college".....move that money to those who want to go to college for the direct purpose of an education.........and while we are at it I would love for a mandate that college athletics must be fully funded on its own without taking any tax dollars toward operational expenses (solely use tax dollars for tuition and books like any other component of higher education does)

MileHigh
10-10-2019, 11:10 AM
and I see there is very little discussion as it pertains to tax payers who fund and support these universities through mandated taking of my hard earned money......why should my tax dollars go to support adults who can now make money while leveraging and using my tax paying dollars as a farce to attend "college".....move that money to those who want to go to college for the direct purpose of an education.........and while we are at it I would love for a mandate that college athletics must be fully funded on its own without taking any tax dollars toward operational expenses (solely use tax dollars for tuition and books like any other component of higher education does)



Interesting take. Sounds like you feel state funds should only be used for students who are in need. Academic scholarships, music scholarships, athletic scholarships are all ways that schools get the best and brightest at academic and extra curricular pursuits to come to their University and, presumably, enrich the school experience for everyone.

Are you proposing that if a student has other means of financing his education (parents, inheritance, job, etc) that he should not get a scholarship?

LongIslandZagFan
10-10-2019, 12:21 PM
Basketball is very different from football in a logistics and material support viewpoint, which is what is required to produce a top program. Fielding a top-10 football team requires dozens of players, special teams, more niche trainers, and a far larger staff and budget than it takes to run a top-10 basketball team or program. It's why you'd never see a national championship level football team from an equivalent of Gonzaga, Butler, Wichita State, etc.

I'm not sure if that difference makes things *easier* or *harder* for rich schools buy their way into a final 4 at a school with $$$ that could effectively pay top players for their marketing name and image.

I actually think it's at least plausible that paying players for a year or two in college would make it more likely for less established programs to land a very elite recruiting class and make a final 4. You'd just need enough money from a rich benefactor to buy the services of a few elite freshman for 6 months. Some non-powerhouse basketball school like Yale or Boston College or Stanford could easily round up a few billionaire alumni and make that happen in Basketball, but the logistical/institutional/$$$ challenge in football would be far greater.

I don't disagree on Football... that isn't going to change. It is already a worthless effort for 99% of the teams in college football to try. It is already skewed to a handful of teams and this will not change the dynamic. Basketball-wise... if there aren't real constraints on how this is implemented... it will destroy the sport IMHO. All you need look at is UCLA in the 70s. They basically had a booster paying their players. They won every year. This is a step back in that direction... just making it above the board and legitimized.

tinfoilzag
10-10-2019, 01:18 PM
Interesting take. Sounds like you feel state funds should only be used for students who are in need. Academic scholarships, music scholarships, athletic scholarships are all ways that schools get the best and brightest at academic and extra curricular pursuits to come to their University and, presumably, enrich the school experience for everyone.

Are you proposing that if a student has other means of financing his education (parents, inheritance, job, etc) that he should not get a scholarship?

"Academic scholarships, music scholarships, athletic scholarships are all ways that schools get the best and brightest at academic and extra curricular pursuits to come to their University and, presumably, enrich the school."

I fixed that sentence for you, College is a business.

The new law in CA is just a turf war between two mafia families.

kitzbuel
10-10-2019, 01:51 PM
Interesting take. Sounds like you feel state funds should only be used for students who are in need. Academic scholarships, music scholarships, athletic scholarships are all ways that schools get the best and brightest at academic and extra curricular pursuits to come to their University and, presumably, enrich the school experience for everyone.

Are you proposing that if a student has other means of financing his education (parents, inheritance, job, etc) that he should not get a scholarship?

That should definitely be taken in to consideration. It is taken into consideration for academic scholarships, music scholarships, etc. It should be taken into account for athletic as well. That way teams can focus scholarship money on those players that don't have the ability to make money off their likeness.

Hoopaholic
10-10-2019, 01:59 PM
Interesting take. Sounds like you feel state funds should only be used for students who are in need. Academic scholarships, music scholarships, athletic scholarships are all ways that schools get the best and brightest at academic and extra curricular pursuits to come to their University and, presumably, enrich the school experience for everyone.

Are you proposing that if a student has other means of financing his education (parents, inheritance, job, etc) that he should not get a scholarship?

No what I am saying is my tax dollars are for the betterment of students for educational purposes not for semipro minor league development.we as tax payers are told the billions of tax dollars for college is to enrich and educate the future and athletics and other extra curricular activities are an extension of that educational value not as a semipro league

Once we start allowing payment to students tax paying dollars are now being used to subsidize a minor league program where some can now be paid. From my view shouldn’t have it both ways. If you want to earn money pay your way don’t use tax payer dollars and get paid

CB4
10-10-2019, 02:26 PM
We can debate all we want and implicate higher principals like tax dollars, pure amateurism, etc. but the ship has sailed. The kids are going to get paid. Gavin Newsom signed a bill that the legislature overwhelming passed, the NCAA will challenge and look like idiots and lose or they will comply. Capitalism and the mighty power of the Golden State will undeniably be victorious.

MileHigh
10-10-2019, 03:18 PM
We can debate all we want and implicate higher principals like tax dollars, pure amateurism, etc. but the ship has sailed. The kids are going to get paid. Gavin Newsom signed a bill that the legislature overwhelming passed, the NCAA will challenge and look like idiots and lose or they will comply. Capitalism and the mighty power of the Golden State will undeniably be victorious.

Not just the Golden State. Both Florida and Colorado law makers have already proposed similar legislation. I imagine in 5-7 years every state in the country will have similar laws because it makes the politicians look good like they are fighting for the "little guy"

Martin Centre Mad Man
10-10-2019, 03:46 PM
The shoe companies are already paying enormous sums to get these kids to endorse their products. They’re just paying the universities directly. The schools don’t want to jeopardize that relationship.

If State U. signs a massive $100 million deal with Adidas, you can bet that Adidas wants to see all State U. basketball players wearing Adidas shoes on game day. They will provide free uniforms to the women’s soccer team, but the real marketing value is in the football and men’s basketball players. If the team’s best player then signs with Nike, will Adidas want to continue funding that school’s athletic department?

If Adidas can sign Zion Williamson right out of high school, will Duke’s next shoe contract suddenly drop in value?

OntZags
10-10-2019, 03:52 PM
No what I am saying is my tax dollars are for the betterment of students for educational purposes not for semipro minor league development.we as tax payers are told the billions of tax dollars for college is to enrich and educate the future and athletics and other extra curricular activities are an extension of that educational value not as a semipro league

Once we start allowing payment to students tax paying dollars are now being used to subsidize a minor league program where some can now be paid. From my view shouldn’t have it both ways. If you want to earn money pay your way don’t use tax payer dollars and get paid

It's not taxpayer money paying these kids. It's their own labour paying themselves. They are the ones already generating revenue above and beyond their scholarship value. (granted players alone aren't the reason NCAA makes money but they are a key component)

Furthermore, this has literally nothing to do with taxpayer dollars. This is giving them the ability to make money off their own likeness. (eg. people buying their jerseys, autographs, getting revenue from name in a video game, perhaps commercials etc.) This has nothing to do with taxpayer money being siphoned to athletes.

That said, I'm not in favour of it letting it affect the current situation where the two revenue sports largely subsidize the non-revenue sports. Those kids in niche sports deserve the same opportunity to get scholarships too. It helps for Olympic training and it helps develop a large contigent of disciplined, educated young people coming out of North America. I know it would be considered a 'socialist concept' (a dirty word it seems these days in America lol) but I still think its imperative that the revenue sports continue to subsidize non-revenue scholarships.

After that, let the kids get paid.

MickMick
10-11-2019, 05:21 AM
Title 9 is based upon the denial of federal funding as a consequence of non compliance. Since it's inception in 1972, Federal compensation has been dwarfed relative to private sponsorship of athletic programs, television contracts for sporting venues, as well as overall expense to the general student body in the form of student loans. Title 9 was a ruling that was dictated on the basis of fairness and equality. It can be argued that the bigger money making athletic programs could probably afford to be non compliant with title 9. It would not surprise me, for example, for the SEC to eventually become non compliant as they focus more on athletic revenue and paying student athletes would be the catalyst for it to happen.

So I'm just wondering. Is there a spirit of fairness where all student athletes will have an equal opportunity to be compensated for their likeness? It certainly won't happen if only one state makes it law. Will male athletes be compensated much more than female athletes? (Which files in the face of the intent of title 9). Has there been fairness with respect to the wide disparity of wealth distribution amongst educational institutions within the NCAA? Can that be argued as discriminatory in the spirit of title 9? Is there currently a case of "haves" and have nots", both within a student athlete perspective as well as an institutional perspective, even when considering if these athletes and institutions were exclusively within the bounds of NCAA compliance? Will paying student athletes exasperate that?

College athletics are trapped in the Twilight Zone. We don't know if student athletes are professional or amateur. We don't know the boundary between financial discrimination or not. Institutions are much less motivated by federal funding, hence removing the big stick that used to force them to abide by the same set of rules. Individual states are creating different sets of rules than the NCAA.

College athletics are undergoing a major evolution purely based upon money, and amateurism, as we once knew it, was the first casualty. The NCAA should basically give up on amateurism as an enforceable concept. This, of course, brings up the matter of tax exemption as well as anti trust.

TexasZag
10-11-2019, 07:23 AM
Logistics aside, Few didn’t help his case (or image) by using inflammatory language, such as “disgusting” and “stay in his lane”, then invoking a trumpist hot-button issue like immigration into the discussion. And how is addressing perceived exploitation, in any environment, not a legitimate role for government?

I do appreciate Few as a coach; although, one could argue he’s been a little too conservative at times, but it almost appears that he’s succumbing to the edgy, confrontational political atmosphere of the times. And while I’m pretty much a nobody on this board, I’ll weigh in anyway...I don’t particularly appreciate that he articulated his position in the manner he chose.

Ladyzag12
10-11-2019, 07:43 AM
At least he doesn't sound as out of touch as Izzo on the subject. He should have just punted on the subject.

LTownZag
10-11-2019, 08:09 AM
And how is addressing perceived exploitation, in any environment, not a legitimate role for government?


1. Because government at its various levels is at least (theoretically) constrained by the powers delegated to it. (though in this case I think the CA gov was acting within its purview)

2. Because every topic that some segment of society perceives as exploitation is not, in fact, exploitation or immoral and even if it is exploitation it might not, in fact, be remediated by a government program without unintended negative consequences greater than the original harm.

See: war on drugs, war on prostitution, ban the box efforts (https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/consequences-of-ban-the-box/494435/), etc.

LTownZag
10-11-2019, 08:25 AM
Shouldn't adults be able to make as much money off their talent as they can?

I'm curious if the folks posing this (in my mind misguided) hypothetical even understand that there's a salary cap for teams and individuals in the NBA right now. Without it, the top players would make more than they do, and the biggest market teams would spend more (on salaries) than they do.

Many (most?) professional sports leagues have these arrangement. These leagues have decided that their product (including players) in the long run are helped by having more competitive balance among teams and markets which includes self-limiting the ability of adult players (and sometimes head coaches) to make as much money as they otherwise could, should these pay ceilings not exist.

If you're troubled by the current NCAA situation explicitly for the reason that you feel these players aren't capturing the full value of their labor in the term of a league paycheck, then its logically inconsistent to not be troubled by the same dynamic which holds back the pay of Lebron and KD.

Hoopaholic
10-11-2019, 09:29 AM
It's not taxpayer money paying these kids. It's their own labour paying themselves. They are the ones already generating revenue above and beyond their scholarship value. (granted players alone aren't the reason NCAA makes money but they are a key component)

Furthermore, this has literally nothing to do with taxpayer dollars. This is giving them the ability to make money off their own likeness. (eg. people buying their jerseys, autographs, getting revenue from name in a video game, perhaps commercials etc.) This has nothing to do with taxpayer money being siphoned to athletes.

That said, I'm not in favour of it letting it affect the current situation where the two revenue sports largely subsidize the non-revenue sports. Those kids in niche sports deserve the same opportunity to get scholarships too. It helps for Olympic training and it helps develop a large contigent of disciplined, educated young people coming out of North America. I know it would be considered a 'socialist concept' (a dirty word it seems these days in America lol) but I still think its imperative that the revenue sports continue to subsidize non-revenue scholarships.

After that, let the kids get paid.

It is taxpayers dollars paying for their tuition books food housing tutors fitness coaches arenas etc

TexasZag
10-11-2019, 09:37 AM
2. Because every topic that some segment of society perceives as exploitation is not, in fact, exploitation or immoral and even if it is exploitation it might not, in fact, be remediated by a government program without unintended negative consequences greater than the original harm.


See: war on drugs, war on prostitution, ban the box efforts (https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/consequences-of-ban-the-box/494435/), etc.

So who decides what constitutes exploitation, those being exploited, or those doing the exploiting? Perceptions do create a sense of reality, whether everyone can agree, or not. This issue has been burning for a long time, so to argue that athletes should not perceive that they are being exploited on some level, relative to this issue, is a bit off the mark, isn’t it? Just asking.

And I’m not so sure that the motives for either the war on drugs or prostitution were about protecting those who are exploited by those ‘industries’ as much as they were (and still are, in my opinion) motivated by some innate need by certain groups to define and enforce morality on those issues. Unfortunately, since the beginning of recorded history, humans have looked to catch a buzz and get laid, so good luck with either of those efforts.

LTownZag
10-11-2019, 12:07 PM
So who decides what constitutes exploitation, those being exploited, or those doing the exploiting?


Mutually voluntary transparent agreements between consenting adults do not constitute exploitation, at least to the extent that the government should step in and tell these adults that their contracts are illegal.

It's a form of arrogant paternalism to look at the choices of thousands of student athletes who freely put tremendous personal effort into earning an NCAA D1 sports scholarship, and tell them they are actually suckers merely being exploited.

Mr Vulture
10-11-2019, 12:58 PM
Ultimately they will need to amend the definition of amateurism in college sports. The easiest way to handle this, would to be to set a maximum amount an athlete can make in endorsements (however they choose to do it). If they exceed this amount, then they have decided that the endorsement money is more important than their eligibility. The question then becomes, what is reasonable for this amount. One thing that I do have issue with, is that amount of "profit" the NCAA itself makes. Since they are a non profit, why not require a percentage of the revenues they make be distributed to schools and/or athletes equitably?

Let's say, just as an hypothetical, the NCAA pays every scholarship student-athlete $12k per year (regardless of sport/star status), allows them to make up to $50k in a year on endorsement/likeness, and maybe caps it at $100k in total over a college career. The schools aren't on the hook for any more costs, it keeps the field somewhat fair (cheaters of course will exist) and still defines a direct definition of what retains "amateur" eligibility.

zagfan24
10-11-2019, 01:15 PM
Ultimately they will need to amend the definition of amateurism in college sports. The easiest way to handle this, would to be to set a maximum amount an athlete can make in endorsements (however they choose to do it). If they exceed this amount, then they have decided that the endorsement money is more important than their eligibility. The question then becomes, what is reasonable for this amount. One thing that I do have issue with, is that amount of "profit" the NCAA itself makes. Since they are a non profit, why not require a percentage of the revenues they make be distributed to schools and/or athletes equitably?

Let's say, just as an hypothetical, the NCAA pays every scholarship student-athlete $12k per year (regardless of sport/star status), allows them to make up to $50k in a year on endorsement/likeness, and maybe caps it at $100k in total over a college career. The schools aren't on the hook for any more costs, it keeps the field somewhat fair (cheaters of course will exist) and still defines a direct definition of what retains "amateur" eligibility.

I know you're just thowing out a hypothetical number, but it is crazy to think that 12k/per year/per athlete would be $5.5 billion per year

CB4
10-11-2019, 02:41 PM
The major concern should be colleges recruiting athletes based on endorsement promises. Set a committee, develop some rules, and allow the NCAA investigators to do their job. Enforce severe penalties. There will still be gray areas and offenders, but if the NCAA makes a big bust in the first two years or so and absolutely crushes a school like Kansas or Arizona and sets them back a decade other schools will get the hint.

bdmiller7
10-11-2019, 03:05 PM
I know you're just thowing out a hypothetical number, but it is crazy to think that 12k/per year/per athlete would be $5.5 billion per year

Building on this thought, the ncaa only makes about 1 billion a year and 960 million already goes back to the schools and conferences of all 3 divisions and over 1000 schools, with about 40 million left for operating costs. I think people often are confusing how much the ncaa makes and what individual schools make. The university of Texas athletics makes over 200 million a year and will have a surplus way more than the entire ncaa by itself. The ncaa is just an organization intended to maintain fairness and organize the sports. If you're thinking kids need to be paid look at individual schools profits as where that money should come from, not the ncaa.

TheOtherGreatOne
10-11-2019, 03:27 PM
Let me get this right, you say the ncaa is about maintaining fairness ? Tell BYU and Pacific this after letting north Carolina slide on the biggest academic scandal in the history of college sports. The post above must have came from Emmert himself. Oh and how about letting duke investigate whether Williamson got paid or not, by themselves. If this would have been Portland State, or Morgan State investigate themselves ?

mgadfly
10-11-2019, 04:57 PM
I'm curious if the folks posing this (in my mind misguided) hypothetical even understand that there's a salary cap for teams and individuals in the NBA right now. Without it, the top players would make more than they do, and the biggest market teams would spend more (on salaries) than they do.

Many (most?) professional sports leagues have these arrangement. These leagues have decided that their product (including players) in the long run are helped by having more competitive balance among teams and markets which includes self-limiting the ability of adult players (and sometimes head coaches) to make as much money as they otherwise could, should these pay ceilings not exist.

If you're troubled by the current NCAA situation explicitly for the reason that you feel these players aren't capturing the full value of their labor in the term of a league paycheck, then its logically inconsistent to not be troubled by the same dynamic which holds back the pay of Lebron and KD.

I don’t think you have any clue about what you are talking about. You do know that professional leagues collectively bargain and college players don’t get paid, right?

There was a time in the world where countries were deciding what system to use to determine the value of labor. Some countries chose communism and socialism, others chose unfettered capitalism. The USA opted to allow collective bargaining in order to balance the private property interests with the rights of labor (speech and assembly mostly). By our very definition of the value of labor, professionals get paid their value. College labor (see NW football team) is deprived access to the same system we use for most all other labor pools.

mgadfly
10-11-2019, 05:00 PM
Please. Now We are doing them a favor by depriving them of the rights of every others labor pool in America by a system propped up by state actors and institutions. That’s rich.

mgadfly
10-11-2019, 05:02 PM
And since I was one of those athletes, I can be proud of my scholarship and recognize that the system is rigged in favor of the schools.

LTownZag
10-11-2019, 05:45 PM
There was a time in the world where countries were deciding what system to use to determine the value of labor. Some countries chose communism and socialism, others chose unfettered capitalism.

Which countries chose unfettered capitalism? What years did they have it?

willandi
10-11-2019, 07:02 PM
Which countries chose unfettered capitalism? What years did they have it?

It seems that we are trying it here, as we speak. It isn't working well at all.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/06/14/eye-popping-analysis-shows-top-1-gained-21-trillion-wealth-1989-while-bottom-half?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR2zdmmRjZDE2YabM7euzW7AsSkDD7FSpgsQjDeaC IOV8SrltDRtCmsG_FI

This is also what will happen if there are no strict rules in place about the athletes getting paid. The wealthy donors of some schools will just buy championships, just like they used to do.

Gonzdb8
10-11-2019, 08:27 PM
It seems that we are trying it here, as we speak. It isn't working well at all.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/06/14/eye-popping-analysis-shows-top-1-gained-21-trillion-wealth-1989-while-bottom-half?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR2zdmmRjZDE2YabM7euzW7AsSkDD7FSpgsQjDeaC IOV8SrltDRtCmsG_FI



+1000000

sonuvazag
10-11-2019, 09:41 PM
Which countries chose unfettered capitalism? What years did they have it?

I'm not much of a historian, but I would say capitalism was its most unfettered in its early days when it emerged in Europe between the 16th and 18th centuries. Socialism was not a concept during those times so it wasn't like countries had a choice at the start. Socialism was developed as a theoretical model in the 19th century and was fully realized in the 20th century as a total rejection of unfettered capitalism. Meanwhile, labor unions and the welfare state came about as a way to account for the shortcomings of unfettered capitalism while avoiding an outright revolution. And I agree with willandi that in the present day, capitalists are pushing back against those fetters and it doesn't seem to be about anything but greed.

Coming back to the thread ... despite being nonprofit organizations, the NCAA and the top tier of its member institutions are generating a boatload of revenue from basketball and football. Individuals are personally profiting amid this nonprofit model. Yes, most of the revenue surplus is invested back into the institutions and their non-revenue athletic programs and that's a good thing. That's what should happen so the system isn't totally broken. But there's no question some people are living in the 1% as a result of their positioning in the college athletics world.

That's why it's not hard to see why exceptional athletes in the revenue sports perceive themselves as the underdog. Without these exceptional players there would be no one living large. Mark Emmert's 2.9 million dollar salary goes bye-bye without the NCAA Tournament television contract. Mark Few's $1.7 million salary goes bye bye without the $12 million his program generates annually.

None of that revenue is generated without the players.

Yes, there is a nonzero value in what the college athletes receive, but the fact is ... Mark Few and most college coaches think there should be a way for the players to get paid somehow and they think the NCAA can sort it out. I agree with them.

I disagree with Few about Newsom being the bad guy here. The state legislation may not be advancing the best or most complete solution, but it is acting on behalf of the players' interests by advancing the plot.

bballbeachbum
10-12-2019, 04:34 PM
Few made comments about the governor but then agreed athletes should be paid based on likeness. His point was that the CA Legislature should let the NCAA and people in the industry regulate themselves. Typically a fine argument that I agree with. But the NCAA has that opportunity via the CA Legislation because it doesn't apply for a few years. They have time to set parameters and rules. The CA law is the catalyst for that. Without the new CA law and it's effective date this issue would be slow rolled and dragged out well beyond the effective date, maintaining the status quo longer than reasonable.

Agree with this.

Great thread with well articulated perspectives. to me the effect would be to empower the biggest to be even bigger, a negative. So if you don't want to attend college with the scholly perks, then don't.

bballbeachbum
10-12-2019, 04:36 PM
Logistics aside, Few didn’t help his case (or image) by using inflammatory language, such as “disgusting” and “stay in his lane”, then invoking a trumpist hot-button issue like immigration into the discussion. And how is addressing perceived exploitation, in any environment, not a legitimate role for government?

I do appreciate Few as a coach; although, one could argue he’s been a little too conservative at times, but it almost appears that he’s succumbing to the edgy, confrontational political atmosphere of the times. And while I’m pretty much a nobody on this board, I’ll weigh in anyway...I don’t particularly appreciate that he articulated his position in the manner he chose.

And agree with this too

zagfan24
10-13-2019, 04:51 AM
to me the effect would be to empower the biggest to be even bigger, a negative. So if you don't want to attend college with the scholly perks, then don't.

I agree with the sentiment, but I honestly don't know if the issue of what is fair to players should be based on whether it maintains a level playing field. For one, I just don't think that's the case at all now. In addition, it maintains the idea that the obligation of the NCAA is to us (fielding a great product, which parity provides) rather than to the student-athletes. Just my thought.

Maybe it's fresh off a week applying for two grants at work, but I was thinking more about whether a grant-type system might be an optimal solution. The NCAA could make a variety of large and small grants, with different criterion based on outstanding performance, unique contributions, etc. available to players. The grants, like research grants, would require meeting certain parameters. In part this is how colleges & universities deal with the fact that their institutions/resources play a role in building the infrastructure around talented professors who also deserve credit and merit for their research accomplishments. I ultimately think that if any fairness is to be maintained the funds need to originate in a central place outside of each athletic department, and this might be one method. Not well thought out...just an idea of framing a potential solution.

Agree that this has been a good thread, mostly full of reasonable opinions with little ad hominem attacks. The truth is that I think Gonzaga has always been proactive about looking at the future and trying to positions itself in a good place regardless of how the tides might change. I think the Zags will be fine no matter the outcome of this process.

Hoopaholic
10-13-2019, 06:44 AM
I'm not much of a historian, but I would say capitalism was its most unfettered in its early days when it emerged in Europe between the 16th and 18th centuries. Socialism was not a concept during those times so it wasn't like countries had a choice at the start. Socialism was developed as a theoretical model in the 19th century and was fully realized in the 20th century as a total rejection of unfettered capitalism. Meanwhile, labor unions and the welfare state came about as a way to account for the shortcomings of unfettered capitalism while avoiding an outright revolution. And I agree with willandi that in the present day, capitalists are pushing back against those fetters and it doesn't seem to be about anything but greed.

Coming back to the thread ... despite being nonprofit organizations, the NCAA and the top tier of its member institutions are generating a boatload of revenue from basketball and football. Individuals are personally profiting amid this nonprofit model. Yes, most of the revenue surplus is invested back into the institutions and their non-revenue athletic programs and that's a good thing. That's what should happen so the system isn't totally broken. But there's no question some people are living in the 1% as a result of their positioning in the college athletics world.

That's why it's not hard to see why exceptional athletes in the revenue sports perceive themselves as the underdog. Without these exceptional players there would be no one living large. Mark Emmert's 2.9 million dollar salary goes bye-bye without the NCAA Tournament television contract. Mark Few's $1.7 million salary goes bye bye without the $12 million his program generates annually.

None of that revenue is generated without the players.

Yes, there is a nonzero value in what the college athletes receive, but the fact is ... Mark Few and most college coaches think there should be a way for the players to get paid somehow and they think the NCAA can sort it out. I agree with them.

I disagree with Few about Newsom being the bad guy here. The state legislation may not be advancing the best or most complete solution, but it is acting on behalf of the players' interests by advancing the plot.
None of the money is generated without the colleges. And the players come and go and the money fans etc continue to show up. I do not think one and fines drive college fanatics

Mr Vulture
10-13-2019, 09:16 AM
I know you're just thowing out a hypothetical number, but it is crazy to think that 12k/per year/per athlete would be $5.5 billion per year

Like I said, just throwing and idea out there. Regardless, the main thing I was saying is that they need to redefine amateurism and setting limits could be how they do that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

willandi
10-13-2019, 09:49 AM
Like I said, just throwing and idea out there. Regardless, the main thing I was saying is that they need to redefine amateurism and setting limits could be how they do that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Haven't they done that redefining?

Room, board, tuition, books and a stipend to provide you with a showcase AND a fall back for the end of a presumed pro career. Somewhere close to the 100K figure for a year at Gonzaga?

Much better, and easier plus fairer to just ban the selling of jerseys with name and the use of a SA likeness while they are in school.

DixieZag
10-13-2019, 11:15 AM
Few made comments about the governor but then agreed athletes should be paid based on likeness. His point was that the CA Legislature should let the NCAA and people in the industry regulate themselves. Typically a fine argument that I agree with. But the NCAA has that opportunity via the CA Legislation because it doesn't apply for a few years. They have time to set parameters and rules. The CA law is the catalyst for that. Without the new CA law and it's effective date this issue would be slow rolled and dragged out well beyond the effective date, maintaining the status quo longer than reasonable.

Yeah.

California isn't exactly spending a ton of effort or thrift in this, they were chosen to lead the way by lobbyists attempting to get the NCAA's attention, bc it would be like waiting for Godot without some states entering in, and "the" state that can force the NCAA to develop uniform standards would be California, maybe Florida. I suspect if the NCAA gets going on it Cal will void the law out or amend it to conform.

I am totally on board with paying for likeness. I just really worry how it will be policed. How will they determine if the car dealership really did pay the kid $10K for a bunch of signed shirts, or whether it was just a 10k handshake?

And Few did a good interview, except when he got out of his lane a bit. When your main point is "don't tell us how to do our job," it's not a good look to do it telling the guy how to do his job.

willandi
10-13-2019, 11:18 AM
Yeah.

California isn't exactly spending a ton of effort or thrift in this, they were chosen to lead the way by lobbyists attempting to get the NCAA's attention, bc it would be like waiting for Godot without some states entering in, and "the" state that can force the NCAA to develop uniform standards would be California, maybe Florida. I suspect if the NCAA gets going on it Cal will void the law out or amend it to conform.

I am totally on board with paying for likeness. I just really worry how it will be policed. How will they determine if the car dealership really did pay the kid $10K for a bunch of signed shirts, or whether it was just a 10k handshake?

And Few did a good interview, except when he got out of his lane a bit. When your main point is "don't tell us how to do our job," it's not a good look to do it telling the guy how to do his job.

Use the likeness of recent grads and pay them. Don't allow undergrads likeness' to be used.

BOOM...problem solved.

DixieZag
10-13-2019, 11:27 AM
Use the likeness of recent grads and pay them. Don't allow undergrads likeness' to be used.

BOOM...problem solved.

Except that doesn't solve the problem they are trying to address. The D1 athlete is the only one on campus that can't take an off-campus job, and is limited to his on campus stipend. It is to address the money made off those whose "likeness" (Rui, as Few noted) is used.

Anyway, Few did a nice job, as usual, just oversold a bit on part of it. I like his position.

willandi
10-13-2019, 11:33 AM
Except that doesn't solve the problem they are trying to address. The D1 athlete is the only one on campus that can't take an off-campus job, and is limited to his on campus stipend. It is to address the money made off those whose "likeness" (Rui, as Few noted) is used.

Anyway, Few did a nice job, as usual, just oversold a bit on part of it. I like his position.

As I said...don't allow the use of a current athlete.

No other students on campus gets a stipend. (to the best of my knowledge)

kitzbuel
10-13-2019, 12:02 PM
I would like to applaud all participants in this thread for staying civil. This is an obviously controversial issue that cuts across several hot button topics. I have been ready to lock this thread at the drop of a hat, but all posters here have stated their opinions and arguments fairly and have refrained from ostracizing other opinions.

Thanks all!

sonuvazag
10-13-2019, 02:55 PM
None of the money is generated without the colleges.No question. I never argued that Mark Few and Mark Emmert don't deserve what they're paid. The college football and basketball aparatus is a money-generating machine and the athletes benefit from it. As of now, the top prospects in those sports don't have a better domestic alternative, unlike baseball and soccer which have minor leagues and academies.


And the players come and go and the money fans etc continue to show up.I'm not as confident as you are that the money/fans are a constant. In any case, this is quite dissmissive of how essential the athletes are to the popularity of the sports. 90% of the discussion on GU Boards, for example, is about specific athletes.


I do not think one and fines drive college fanaticsI agree that the sure-fire pro prospects are not the sum total of college athletics, but television promotionals do highlight the pro prospects whenever possible. Tune in to watch Zion. Tune in to watch Tua. Sports journalism features pro prospects when it can. You have to know that advertisers would love to sponsor these athletes while in college if they could. For this reason, I'm confident a substantial amount of revenue is generated due to the promotion of star power.

DixieZag
10-13-2019, 05:25 PM
As I said...don't allow the use of a current athlete.

No other students on campus gets a stipend. (to the best of my knowledge)

If Google went over to the computer engineering department at Stanford and took 6 upperclassmen and said: "We will pay you $100K to work at our campus half-time while in school …" the computer engineer would be allowed to do it … provided he wasn't also a defensive end.

Athletes - as far as I know - are the only ones literally not allowed to hold jobs at all, while remaining eligible. When you pair that with the shoe company money, it does seem to be exploitive.

Hoop and others, do note that no one is saying that the NCAA and schools who set up the whole thing suddenly cannot make money off it, the idea is only to provide some empowerment over the ones playing the game.

Very complex problem. Lots of potential to mess things up with good intentions.

willandi
10-13-2019, 05:43 PM
If Google went over to the computer engineering department at Stanford and took 6 upperclassmen and said: "We will pay you $100K to work at our campus half-time while in school …" the computer engineer would be allowed to do it … provided he wasn't also a defensive end.

Athletes - as far as I know - are the only ones literally not allowed to hold jobs at all, while remaining eligible. When you pair that with the shoe company money, it does seem to be exploitive.

Hoop and others, do note that no one is saying that the NCAA and schools who set up the whole thing suddenly cannot make money off it, the idea is only to provide some empowerment over the ones playing the game.

Very complex problem. Lots of potential to mess things up with good intentions.

The computer engineer would also provide a tangible, and useful, product.

Hoopaholic
10-13-2019, 05:56 PM
If Google went over to the computer engineering department at Stanford and took 6 upperclassmen and said: "We will pay you $100K to work at our campus half-time while in school …" the computer engineer would be allowed to do it … provided he wasn't also a defensive end.

Athletes - as far as I know - are the only ones literally not allowed to hold jobs at all, while remaining eligible. When you pair that with the shoe company money, it does seem to be exploitive.

Hoop and others, do note that no one is saying that the NCAA and schools who set up the whole thing suddenly cannot make money off it, the idea is only to provide some empowerment over the ones playing the game.

Very complex problem. Lots of potential to mess things up with good intentions.
Athletes can have jobs that’s a myth and the vast majority of college athletes do work

sylean
10-13-2019, 08:08 PM
the players get a great education with travel opportunities plus exposure on the national scene plus our student athletes get a nice monthly stipend...

what beyond that do you want?......a player that is so great they think they don't need the coaching, and the training to be big stars don't have to be forced to accept the education/travel/exposure/and stipend, poor things......they can go professional someplace.....

we know the value of attending a good bb program like Gonzaga........its quid pro quo...we give you this, you play for us....

the university benefits, the student athlete benefits......the players are NOT being taken advantage of....





but, question is, do people want professional players? That is where this will lead. we're not going to like it. W e're not going to like it when player A comes here for a year or two then decides to go to Oregon where they're promised to make a hundred thousand more because Gonzaga made them "famous"...

CB4
10-13-2019, 08:13 PM
If local car dealer calls in the summer and offers student athlete $10K for a commercial, thats what more people want and what the law requires. The potential issue is boosters and other people artificially inflating endorsements to solicit recruits. That's a serious concern. The NCAA will need to address that and enforce any rules they end up making. I realize it's a lot for people to fathom where these athletes already get so much and it seems greedy to want more or require more but guys there's so much money out there, the school profits handsomely from top recruits, it's really strange to have a rule that prevents them from earning money on their own, separate from the school, based on their reputation and skill, based on an outdated definition of amateurism.

willandi
10-13-2019, 08:15 PM
the players get a great education with travel opportunities plus exposure on the national scene plus our student athletes get a nice monthly stipend...

what beyond that do you want?......a player that is so great they think they don't need the coaching, and the training to be big stars don't have to be forced to accept the education/travel/exposure/and stipend, poor things......they can go professional someplace.....

we know the value of attending a good bb program like Gonzaga........its quid pro quo...we give you this, you play for us....

the university benefits, the student athlete benefits......the players are NOT being taken advantage of....





but, question is, do people want professional players? That is where this will lead. we're not going to like it. W e're not going to like it when player A comes here for a year or two then decides to go to Oregon where they're promised to make a hundred thousand more because Gonzaga made them "famous"...

I totally agree. Just some think they are owed more.

webspinnre
10-13-2019, 08:32 PM
If local car dealer calls in the summer and offers student athlete $10K for a commercial, thats what more people want and what the law requires. The potential issue is boosters and other people artificially inflating endorsements to solicit recruits. That's a serious concern. The NCAA will need to address that and enforce any rules they end up making. I realize it's a lot for people to fathom where these athletes already get so much and it seems greedy to want more or require more but guys there's so much money out there, the school profits handsomely from top recruits, it's really strange to have a rule that prevents them from earning money on their own, separate from the school, based on their reputation and skill, based on an outdated definition of amateurism.

You've precisely identified both the desire and the challenge.

kitzbuel
10-14-2019, 03:57 AM
the players get a great education with travel opportunities plus exposure on the national scene plus our student athletes get a nice monthly stipend...

what beyond that do you want?......a player that is so great they think they don't need the coaching, and the training to be big stars don't have to be forced to accept the education/travel/exposure/and stipend, poor things......they can go professional someplace.....

we know the value of attending a good bb program like Gonzaga........its quid pro quo...we give you this, you play for us....

the university benefits, the student athlete benefits......the players are NOT being taken advantage of....





but, question is, do people want professional players? That is where this will lead. we're not going to like it. W e're not going to like it when player A comes here for a year or two then decides to go to Oregon where they're promised to make a hundred thousand more because Gonzaga made them "famous"...
The school isn’t required to give them a scholarship, either. It is entirely plausible and feasible that a school could give a player a ‘walk on’ position on the team, allow the player’s outside earnings to cover his tuition, and give the scholarship to another student who doesn’t have the earning power of a star athlete. This would actually allow scholarship money to target kids who actually need it. Win-win.

Mr Vulture
10-14-2019, 09:56 AM
Haven't they done that redefining?

Room, board, tuition, books and a stipend to provide you with a showcase AND a fall back for the end of a presumed pro career. Somewhere close to the 100K figure for a year at Gonzaga?

Much better, and easier plus fairer to just ban the selling of jerseys with name and the use of a SA likeness while they are in school.

That is the current definition but it's clearly going to change from that. The use of N/L is going to be implemented one way or the other. I'm not saying I agree with the legislation necessarily, but there do need to be limits in the end...in my opinion.

CB4
10-14-2019, 11:35 AM
Related question: Will Gonzaga recruiting be better or worse off once athletes can profit from their NIL?

I suspect Gonzaga will actually be better off. Unlike in most major markets, where the non-starters don't get much fan fare, Spokane knows all the players At Gonzaga, Gonzaga is the biggest name in a nice sized media market similar in size to Omaha, Toledo, Tuscan. The non-starters are generally known and will be targets for businesses that want to affiliate with the players.

Do we really think the 8th guy on Dukes bench will have the same opportunities? I don't think so. The top players at Duke will get the big national endorsements but I suspect they'd get those same endorsements if they were at Gonzaga.

For example, Zion would likely have had the same endorsements if he were at Gonzaga. If Gonzaga gets a lottery pick, I don't think his marketability is hurt because he's at Gonzaga versus another school. Players like Rui are unique too and will have unique opportunities.

I am setting aside for a moment the concerns that have been voiced about recruits being promised endorsements to enroll at certain schools. Let's assume the NCAA does a meaningful job to prevent that.

I think Gonzaga is really positioned well for players to capitalize on the range of national/international endorsement opportunities in addition to the local smaller endorsement opportunities that will uniquely arise in places like Spokane but will not exist for players in places like LA or Seattle.

LongIslandZagFan
10-14-2019, 12:12 PM
I'd still love someone to explain how this will keep massively rich alumni from throwing money at the best players and essentially narrowing all championships down to 2-3 schools every single year. UCLA under Wooden is all you need to know. The real wizard of Westwood was Sam Gilbert who paid the best players to play there. 10 championships in 12 years. I just see this being such a bad thing if not thought out thoroughly.

LongIslandZagFan
10-14-2019, 12:13 PM
Related question: Will Gonzaga recruiting be better or worse off once athletes can profit from their NIL?

Far worse off. Don't have the $$$ to pay kids like schools like the big boys do.

CB4
10-14-2019, 12:24 PM
Far worse off. Don't have the $$$ to pay kids like schools like the big boys do.

The NCAA at least says they try to prevent schools and boosters from paying kids under the table now. They do take enforcement efforts that seem to act as some kind of deterrent. I suspect we agree that the NCAA doesn't do a good enough job and that programs, like Gonzaga, that don't pay players are at a strategic disadvantage by being honest and following the rules.

Nevertheless, wouldn't the NCAA be able to enforce rules specifically against boosters providing endorsements to players in exchange for their commitment to the booster's desired university?

zagfan24
10-14-2019, 12:25 PM
I'd still love someone to explain how this will keep massively rich alumni from throwing money at the best players and essentially narrowing all championships down to 2-3 schools every single year. UCLA under Wooden is all you need to know. The real wizard of Westwood was Sam Gilbert who paid the best players to play there. 10 championships in 12 years. I just see this being such a bad thing if not thought out thoroughly.

Don't they, in essence, do this now? Rich alumni throw massive amounts into the programs, allowing for amenities for teams and athletes that are certainly a piece of the recruiting pitch. Even more importantly, would anything really change? The big programs already attract almost all of the 5 star talent. There are, fortunately, enough big programs and few enough transcendently talented players so they don't all tend to pile up on one team. Even when there is a massive influx of stars (see Zion, Cam, RJ, and Tre) the fact that these players now leave so quickly actually helps limit the impact. I see what you are saying...I don't want money influencing the game any more than it already does...but from a practical standpoint I guess I don't see much changing on that front. At the end of the day, some players will still value being the face of a program, getting a quality education, being in a family atmosphere, etc. just like they do now.

I think the biggest issue that this all ultimately boils down to is the awkward and ultimately misguided fit between academic institutions and amateur athletics. We can keep jamming together those puzzle pieces in different configurations, but as long as these sports bring in billions, the influence of that money will always play a role.

LongIslandZagFan
10-14-2019, 12:33 PM
Don't they, in essence, do this now? Rich alumni throw massive amounts into the programs, allowing for amenities for teams and athletes that are certainly a piece of the recruiting pitch. Even more importantly, would anything really change? The big programs already attract almost all of the 5 star talent. There are, fortunately, enough big programs and few enough transcendently talented players so they don't all tend to pile up on one team. Even when there is a massive influx of stars (see Zion, Cam, RJ, and Tre) the fact that these players now leave so quickly actually helps limit the impact. I see what you are saying...I don't want money influencing the game any more than it already does...but from a practical standpoint I guess I don't see much changing on that front. At the end of the day, some players will still value being the face of a program, getting a quality education, being in a family atmosphere, etc. just like they do now.

I think the biggest issue that this all ultimately boils down to is the awkward and ultimately misguided fit between academic institutions and amateur athletics. We can keep jamming together those puzzle pieces in different configurations, but as long as these sports bring in billions, the influence of that money will always play a role.

One thing for it to go towards facilities. Another to literally pay students, which is where this is going. Top 50 players go to the highest bidders. I think there can be a middle ground on this... but blanketly saying, like the law passed did, that they can go out and make money selling their image is a wide open door for the Sam Gilberts of today. You don't think Phil Knight is going to throw money through Nike at Oregon recruits?

TexasZagFan
10-14-2019, 12:51 PM
One thing for it to go towards facilities. Another to literally pay students, which is where this is going. Top 50 players go to the highest bidders. I think there can be a middle ground on this... but blanketly saying, like the law passed did, that they can go out and make money selling their image is a wide open door for the Sam Gilberts of today. You don't think Phil Knight is going to throw money through Nike at Oregon recruits?

Just thinking aloud, but there could be an ethical way for a school like Gonzaga to benefit those few athletes that will actually make money from NIL.

Create classes within the sports management program that address these financial issues, such as marketing (building your brand), instruction on how to deal with extended family members, investment and tax planning, and money management, to name just a few. It's my impression that today's mega-rich athletes are very unhappy, Kevin Durant being the best example. Their newfound wealth has created a very complicated life for them.

Just my $.02.

LongIslandZagFan
10-14-2019, 01:12 PM
Just thinking aloud, but there could be an ethical way for a school like Gonzaga to benefit those few athletes that will actually make money from NIL.

Create classes within the sports management program that address these financial issues, such as marketing (building your brand), instruction on how to deal with extended family members, investment and tax planning, and money management, to name just a few. It's my impression that today's mega-rich athletes are very unhappy, Kevin Durant being the best example. Their newfound wealth has created a very complicated life for them.

Just my $.02.

I don't disagree, but there has to be some reasonable limits. Otherwise it is going to be a waste of time to bother trying for all but maybe 5-10 teams every single year. Look at college football... it is the same 5 or 6 teams ... every... single... year.

229SintoZag
10-14-2019, 02:20 PM
This is an interesting thread and many thoughtful posts here.

I will say I agree generally with Mark Few. I think the statute passed on California was more about posturing politically than it was about solving an actual problem. The reality is that this entire discussion is a solution in search of a problem.

A couple points I wish to make.

1. No adult college student who accepts a scholarship in exchange for playing a sport is "exploited." The bargain is, with extraordinarily few exceptions, a fair bargain or even a generous bargain in favor of the student athlete. For 99.9 percent of this cohort, the athlete involved has precisely zero prospect of ever earning even one dime from endorsements or other deals profiting from his or her image or "likeness" before enrolling in college or without enrolling in college. If anything, the scholarship and the opportunity to play for a college itself offers not just a post-secondary education (which is itself ever-more-valuable by the day it seems), but also the best and proven platform for that athlete to transition from that status to a more elevated station in life where profiting from his or her image or likeness is indeed something that is possible in the marketplace. For this cohort of athletes, the current model and paradigm is fair, mutually-beneficial, and not in any way "exploitative" or problematic.

2. For the .1 percent or less who, upon high school graduation or earlier, could sign and enter into endorsement deals, this legislation does nothing for them that could not have been done to begin with had this law not passed. Many articles incorrectly state that California's law will "allow" such an athlete to profit from their image or likeness now. This is incorrect. As a matter of fact, nothing in the law currently prohibits such an adult athlete from entering into contracts to so profit. In this respect, the law "allows" what is already allowed and not forbidden. It "legalizes" what is already perfectly legal.

Instead, what the law actually does is make it illegal for a college, at its discretion and according to its own policies, to penalize a student who did this (whether under the aegis of the NCAA rules or any other rule, for that matter). In other words, the law applies to and affects institutions of higher education, organizations such as the NCAA who administer intercollegiate athletics, and only them--not individual athletes. it is worth keeping this point in mind, because I think many here falsely think that individual athletes may someday be able to litigate or bring cases under the new law. They most likely could not, as they likely would not have standing to do so under the statute, which is completely silent on its enforcement mechanism and provides for no private right of action at all for student athletes.

Which means:

3. This law will likely never be enforced. It reads as if it were written specifically to draw a legal challenge (which is surely will) from the NCAA or from a school. And reading the statute, I cannot see how it would ever survive such a challenge. Neither California nor any other state has any business telling colleges how to award athletic scholarships, and under what terms. What is missing from this discussion is an appreciation for the fact that both athletic programs and their administration (whether by NCAA or NAIA or whoever) are engaged in VOLUNTARY non-mandatory behavior when playing sports and awarding scholarships to athletes. No athlete has to play a sport. No school has to field a team. No conference has to retain its members. And the NCAA certainly does NOT have to continue to allow any school that broke its internal bylaws on amateurism from participating in the NCAA. California can do or saw what it wants, but California most definitely cannot legislate hte bylaws of the NCAA (with appropriate caveats that discrimination on sex, race, etc could never be approved through such bylaws).

Which brings me back to my main point: this is a solution in search of a problem. There are almost no athletes today who can earn endorsements coming out of high school and into their college years. And those very very few who can, will be able to by just skipping college a la LeBron James. This statute is an overbearing solution to a strictly hypothetical problem. The reality is that the athletes need the NCAA and the current paradigm just as much as vice versa and there is too much on the line for the current system to simply be scrapped. CBS/TBS etc paid billions and billions for the rights to the NCAA tournament for years, and I can assure you that they expect to get what they paid for in terms of a quality event with competitive games from both big and small schools going forward. They will fight tooth and nail to obtain the benefit of their bargain. Same goes for ESPN with the College Football Playoff, the bowl games, etc.

Meanwhile, there are so many ways that actual deployment of this law will create new problems it is almost impossible to fathom.

It is my opinion that this law will generate discussion and that some of that discussion may prove useful, but that at the end of the day, money talks and money wins--and money won't let this statute stand. Therefore, it won't. And the status quo will by and large persist, current political grandstanding on this issue notwithstanding.

Mr Vulture
10-14-2019, 02:40 PM
:000tens:

bdmiller7
10-14-2019, 02:59 PM
Awesome post. It won't just be the NCAA fighting, every school in California was opposed. Like you said, they dont want to be banned from competing for NCAA championships.

DixieZag
10-14-2019, 03:19 PM
Athletes can have jobs that’s a myth and the vast majority of college athletes do work

I wrote prior to reviewing the newer laws. You are right, they are allowed to hold a job, if it is approved by the school, and remains within exemption limits. https://static.gohuskies.com/pdf/genrel/student-athlete-employment-06.pdf

Do you have any cite for the "vast majority of athletes have jobs"?

bdmiller7
10-14-2019, 03:52 PM
I wrote prior to reviewing the newer laws. You are right, they are allowed to hold a job, if it is approved by the school, and remains within exemption limits. https://static.gohuskies.com/pdf/genrel/student-athlete-employment-06.pdf

Do you have any cite for the "vast majority of athletes have jobs"?

I would guess a lot of the D2 and D3 athletes would have jobs, especially in the offseason, and in many of the sports that dont offer full rides, but partial scholarships divided out among the athletes.

LongIslandZagFan
10-14-2019, 04:22 PM
I would guess a lot of the D2 and D3 athletes would have jobs, especially in the offseason, and in many of the sports that dont offer full rides, but partial scholarships divided out among the athletes.

this... many girls on my daughter’s tennis team had work study type jobs at the D2 level

willandi
10-14-2019, 07:23 PM
Maybe California could do something really helpful. They could make homelessness against the law and then it would no longer be a problem!

















sarcasm

ZagDad84
10-14-2019, 10:07 PM
This is an interesting thread and many thoughtful posts here.

I will say I agree generally with Mark Few. I think the statute passed on California was more about posturing politically than it was about solving an actual problem. The reality is that this entire discussion is a solution in search of a problem.

A couple points I wish to make.

1. No adult college student who accepts a scholarship in exchange for playing a sport is "exploited." The bargain is, with extraordinarily few exceptions, a fair bargain or even a generous bargain in favor of the student athlete. For 99.9 percent of this cohort, the athlete involved has precisely zero prospect of ever earning even one dime from endorsements or other deals profiting from his or her image or "likeness" before enrolling in college or without enrolling in college. If anything, the scholarship and the opportunity to play for a college itself offers not just a post-secondary education (which is itself ever-more-valuable by the day it seems), but also the best and proven platform for that athlete to transition from that status to a more elevated station in life where profiting from his or her image or likeness is indeed something that is possible in the marketplace. For this cohort of athletes, the current model and paradigm is fair, mutually-beneficial, and not in any way "exploitative" or problematic.

2. For the .1 percent or less who, upon high school graduation or earlier, could sign and enter into endorsement deals, this legislation does nothing for them that could not have been done to begin with had this law not passed. Many articles incorrectly state that California's law will "allow" such an athlete to profit from their image or likeness now. This is incorrect. As a matter of fact, nothing in the law currently prohibits such an adult athlete from entering into contracts to so profit. In this respect, the law "allows" what is already allowed and not forbidden. It "legalizes" what is already perfectly legal.

Instead, what the law actually does is make it illegal for a college, at its discretion and according to its own policies, to penalize a student who did this (whether under the aegis of the NCAA rules or any other rule, for that matter). In other words, the law applies to and affects institutions of higher education, organizations such as the NCAA who administer intercollegiate athletics, and only them--not individual athletes. it is worth keeping this point in mind, because I think many here falsely think that individual athletes may someday be able to litigate or bring cases under the new law. They most likely could not, as they likely would not have standing to do so under the statute, which is completely silent on its enforcement mechanism and provides for no private right of action at all for student athletes.

Which means:

3. This law will likely never be enforced. It reads as if it were written specifically to draw a legal challenge (which is surely will) from the NCAA or from a school. And reading the statute, I cannot see how it would ever survive such a challenge. Neither California nor any other state has any business telling colleges how to award athletic scholarships, and under what terms. What is missing from this discussion is an appreciation for the fact that both athletic programs and their administration (whether by NCAA or NAIA or whoever) are engaged in VOLUNTARY non-mandatory behavior when playing sports and awarding scholarships to athletes. No athlete has to play a sport. No school has to field a team. No conference has to retain its members. And the NCAA certainly does NOT have to continue to allow any school that broke its internal bylaws on amateurism from participating in the NCAA. California can do or saw what it wants, but California most definitely cannot legislate hte bylaws of the NCAA (with appropriate caveats that discrimination on sex, race, etc could never be approved through such bylaws).

Which brings me back to my main point: this is a solution in search of a problem. There are almost no athletes today who can earn endorsements coming out of high school and into their college years. And those very very few who can, will be able to by just skipping college a la LeBron James. This statute is an overbearing solution to a strictly hypothetical problem. The reality is that the athletes need the NCAA and the current paradigm just as much as vice versa and there is too much on the line for the current system to simply be scrapped. CBS/TBS etc paid billions and billions for the rights to the NCAA tournament for years, and I can assure you that they expect to get what they paid for in terms of a quality event with competitive games from both big and small schools going forward. They will fight tooth and nail to obtain the benefit of their bargain. Same goes for ESPN with the College Football Playoff, the bowl games, etc.

Meanwhile, there are so many ways that actual deployment of this law will create new problems it is almost impossible to fathom.

It is my opinion that this law will generate discussion and that some of that discussion may prove useful, but that at the end of the day, money talks and money wins--and money won't let this statute stand. Therefore, it won't. And the status quo will by and large persist, current political grandstanding on this issue notwithstanding.

Thank You, 229SintoZag for taking almost 4 pages of comments and boiling it down to a few, very articulate paragraphs which succinctly lays out the issues.

Very well done.

:cheers:

ZagDad

LTownZag
10-14-2019, 10:22 PM
This is an interesting thread and many thoughtful posts here.

I will say I agree generally with Mark Few. I think the statute passed on California was more about posturing politically than it was about solving an actual problem. The reality is that this entire discussion is a solution in search of a problem.

A couple points I wish to make.

1. No adult college student who accepts a scholarship in exchange for playing a sport is "exploited." The bargain is, with extraordinarily few exceptions, a fair bargain or even a generous bargain in favor of the student athlete. For 99.9 percent of this cohort, the athlete involved has precisely zero prospect of ever earning even one dime from endorsements or other deals profiting from his or her image or "likeness" before enrolling in college or without enrolling in college. If anything, the scholarship and the opportunity to play for a college itself offers not just a post-secondary education (which is itself ever-more-valuable by the day it seems), but also the best and proven platform for that athlete to transition from that status to a more elevated station in life where profiting from his or her image or likeness is indeed something that is possible in the marketplace. For this cohort of athletes, the current model and paradigm is fair, mutually-beneficial, and not in any way "exploitative" or problematic.

2. For the .1 percent or less who, upon high school graduation or earlier, could sign and enter into endorsement deals, this legislation does nothing for them that could not have been done to begin with had this law not passed. Many articles incorrectly state that California's law will "allow" such an athlete to profit from their image or likeness now. This is incorrect. As a matter of fact, nothing in the law currently prohibits such an adult athlete from entering into contracts to so profit. In this respect, the law "allows" what is already allowed and not forbidden. It "legalizes" what is already perfectly legal.

Instead, what the law actually does is make it illegal for a college, at its discretion and according to its own policies, to penalize a student who did this (whether under the aegis of the NCAA rules or any other rule, for that matter). In other words, the law applies to and affects institutions of higher education, organizations such as the NCAA who administer intercollegiate athletics, and only them--not individual athletes. it is worth keeping this point in mind, because I think many here falsely think that individual athletes may someday be able to litigate or bring cases under the new law. They most likely could not, as they likely would not have standing to do so under the statute, which is completely silent on its enforcement mechanism and provides for no private right of action at all for student athletes.

Which means:

3. This law will likely never be enforced. It reads as if it were written specifically to draw a legal challenge (which is surely will) from the NCAA or from a school. And reading the statute, I cannot see how it would ever survive such a challenge. Neither California nor any other state has any business telling colleges how to award athletic scholarships, and under what terms. What is missing from this discussion is an appreciation for the fact that both athletic programs and their administration (whether by NCAA or NAIA or whoever) are engaged in VOLUNTARY non-mandatory behavior when playing sports and awarding scholarships to athletes. No athlete has to play a sport. No school has to field a team. No conference has to retain its members. And the NCAA certainly does NOT have to continue to allow any school that broke its internal bylaws on amateurism from participating in the NCAA. California can do or saw what it wants, but California most definitely cannot legislate hte bylaws of the NCAA (with appropriate caveats that discrimination on sex, race, etc could never be approved through such bylaws).

Which brings me back to my main point: this is a solution in search of a problem. There are almost no athletes today who can earn endorsements coming out of high school and into their college years. And those very very few who can, will be able to by just skipping college a la LeBron James. This statute is an overbearing solution to a strictly hypothetical problem. The reality is that the athletes need the NCAA and the current paradigm just as much as vice versa and there is too much on the line for the current system to simply be scrapped. CBS/TBS etc paid billions and billions for the rights to the NCAA tournament for years, and I can assure you that they expect to get what they paid for in terms of a quality event with competitive games from both big and small schools going forward. They will fight tooth and nail to obtain the benefit of their bargain. Same goes for ESPN with the College Football Playoff, the bowl games, etc.

Meanwhile, there are so many ways that actual deployment of this law will create new problems it is almost impossible to fathom.

It is my opinion that this law will generate discussion and that some of that discussion may prove useful, but that at the end of the day, money talks and money wins--and money won't let this statute stand. Therefore, it won't. And the status quo will by and large persist, current political grandstanding on this issue notwithstanding.

Please post more frequently on these forums.

CB4
10-14-2019, 10:48 PM
California can regulate its own schools. NCAA can kick out those schools. NCAA can see what the landscape looks like with CA schools not participating and other states following it's lead. CA law will apply to CA schools over NCAA regulations. Not sure why you think the CA law is certainly unlikely to stand.

Zagger
10-15-2019, 04:02 AM
A good read on this subject:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/cory-booker-trying-save-ncaa-itself/599926/


The NCAA and its member schools are adept at pretending that figuring out a way to compensate athletes is as impossible as time travel. “It’s an incredibly complex issue. It’s like health care in America,” the Gonzaga head basketball coach Mark Few recently told Jeff Goodman, a senior college-basketball reporter for the digital sports network Stadium.

But the truth is far simpler than that. The NCAA has no interest in sharing its vast wealth with its labor force. The system may change only if elected leaders—first Newsom and now Booker—step in and force the issue.

Bogozags
10-15-2019, 04:32 AM
this... many girls on my daughter’s tennis team had work study type jobs at the D2 level

I wonder, was she receiving scholarship money? From what I remember, student/athletes on scholarship were not permitted to have work study type jobs.

I remember Hunt, who was a UNLV starting guard on their final four teams, had a t-shirt business and was making money selling his t-shirts. I don't have access to the exact wordage but the NCAA basically stated he could no longer own that business and play basketball. It was a big thing at the time and spoken about frequently when UNLV played on TV. Whether he was or wasn't trying to capitalize on his position as a UNLV starter but it seemed the NCAA didn't want an gray areas within their definition on "amateur standing."

LongIslandZagFan
10-15-2019, 05:02 AM
I wonder, was she receiving scholarship money? From what I remember, student/athletes on scholarship were not permitted to have work study type jobs.

I remember Hunt, who was a UNLV starting guard on their final four teams, had a t-shirt business and was making money selling his t-shirts. I don't have access to the exact wordage but the NCAA basically stated he could no longer own that business and play basketball. It was a big thing at the time and spoken about frequently when UNLV played on TV. Whether he was or wasn't trying to capitalize on his position as a UNLV starter but it seemed the NCAA didn't want an gray areas within their definition on "amateur standing."

Not her personally, but yes at least 2 of the girls had partial scholarships... nobody on her team had full-ride scholarships.

Grand Valley Zag
10-15-2019, 08:03 AM
California can regulate its own schools. NCAA can kick out those schools. NCAA can see what the landscape looks like with CA schools not participating and other states following it's lead. CA law will apply to CA schools over NCAA regulations. Not sure why you think the CA law is certainly unlikely to stand.

negative commerce clause?

(I have no clue whether the Act would withstand it; sounds like an interesting question though.)

CB4
10-15-2019, 08:43 AM
negative commerce clause?

(I have no clue whether the Act would withstand it; sounds like an interesting question though.)

Good article on the issue :

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.si.com/college-football/2019/09/30/fair-pay-to-play-act-law-ncaa-california-pac-12

Zagdawg
10-15-2019, 09:33 AM
This would also impact the WCC-- just signed with ESPN through 2027.
"The Pac-12, meanwhile, is poised to lose four of its members—UCLA, USC, Cal and Stanford—in the event those schools can’t continue as NCAA members. The Pac-12 might need to be reconstituted as the Pac-8. The potential loss of revenue to the conference is considerable. The Pac-12 is in the middle of a $3 billion, 12-year TV rights deal where both ESPN and Fox pay for the right to broadcast Pac-12 games. The deal will expire in 2024—one year after the Act is scheduled to go into effect. Future conference business deals without the California schools, along with their fan bases and purchasing power, would be more difficult to negotiate. It’s thus not surprising that the Pac-12 swiftly issued a statement on Monday denouncing the Act. These same basic points also apply to the Mountain West Conference, which includes as members San Diego State, Fresno State and San Jose State."

Grand Valley Zag
10-15-2019, 09:45 AM
Good article on the issue :

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.si.com/college-football/2019/09/30/fair-pay-to-play-act-law-ncaa-california-pac-12

Nice. Thanks. I'll enjoy watching this unfold.