Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 101

Thread: NCAA & Monetizing a Name/Image/Likeness

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    689

    Default NCAA & Monetizing a Name/Image/Likeness

    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.

    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.
    Last edited by LTownZag; 10-09-2019 at 12:11 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    47

    Default

    FYI there is an interesting discussion on ssf about Few's interview more specifically which also addresses some of the points in this thread

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    514

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LTownZag View Post
    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.

    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.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    42

    Default

    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.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    285

    Default

    Spokesman Review article on Few's comments pertaining to the new California Law:

    https://www.spokesman.com/stories/20...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.”

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johno View Post
    Spokesman Review article on Few's comments pertaining to the new California Law:

    https://www.spokesman.com/stories/20...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.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Just north of I-80
    Posts
    45,492

    Default

    See this thread in "General Basketball" for additional discussion:

    http://guboards.spokesmanreview.com/...y-defying-NCAA

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    788

    Default

    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.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    San Diego, Ca.
    Posts
    7,455

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CPkZagFan View Post
    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

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Lacrosse, Washington
    Posts
    6,716

    Default

    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
    Basketball...The Toy Department of Life

    Don't mess wth happy...Coach Few

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    7,143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johno View Post
    Spokesman Review article on Few's comments pertaining to the new California Law:

    https://www.spokesman.com/stories/20...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.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    788

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoopaholic View Post
    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.
    ...

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    3,082

    Default

    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

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    583

    Default

    [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)

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    On an island that is long
    Posts
    12,651

    Default

    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.
    "And Morrison? He did what All-Americans do. He shot daggers in the daylight and stole a win." - Steve Kelley (Seattle Times)

    "Gonzaga is a special place, with special people!" - Dan Dickau #21

    Foo me once shame on you, Foo me twice shame on me.

    2012 Foostrodamus - Foothsayer of Death

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    689

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MileHigh View Post
    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.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    6,418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LongIslandZagFan View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by LTownZag View Post
    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.
    Hoping you have a sense of humor too!

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Edgewood, WA
    Posts
    1,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LTownZag View Post

    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.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Posts
    1,254

    Default

    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.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    689

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mgadfly View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by mgadfly View Post
    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?


    Quote Originally Posted by mgadfly View Post
    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.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    On an island that is long
    Posts
    12,651

    Default

    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.
    "And Morrison? He did what All-Americans do. He shot daggers in the daylight and stole a win." - Steve Kelley (Seattle Times)

    "Gonzaga is a special place, with special people!" - Dan Dickau #21

    Foo me once shame on you, Foo me twice shame on me.

    2012 Foostrodamus - Foothsayer of Death

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Edgewood, WA
    Posts
    1,460

    Default

    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).

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    689

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mgadfly View Post
    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.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Edgewood, WA
    Posts
    1,460

    Default

    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.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    689

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LongIslandZagFan View Post
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •