Commission on College Basketball - Findings to be released Wednesday

[Bluedog]

I think this statement is too extreme. The fact is they are sharing it, just not necessarily enough with basketball and football players, they are sharing it by using it to provide for all the other scholarship sports.

So the colleges are essentially acting like the non-profit charity organization, except you may take exception to the percentage they skim off the top to pay the administrators and coaches. Which is no different than say the head of the Red Cross making millions.

Agreed. Also note that the NCAA doesn't make much money from football as that is governed by the BCS and the NCAA does not share in the proceeds. So, basically, it's just men's basketball that is the cash cow for the NCAA that it utilizes to fund all the other sports and championship events.

[UrinalCake]

I think this statement is too extreme. The fact is they are sharing it, just not necessarily enough with basketball and football players, they are sharing it by using it to provide for all the other scholarship sports.

That's a fair point, and I guess I should clarify. The committee was started in response to the FBI investigation and subsequent indictments that revealed payments being made to high schoolers and to assistant coaches. The goal of the committee was to "clean up" college basketball and to make sure these types of things don't happen. But the things that they proposed don't actually address these issues.

Agents and shoe companies are willing to pay players because players have value, and the players aren't receiving that value by attending college. You are right that we are only talking about a small percentage of basketball and football players, and that the vast majority of college athletes do receive a lot in terms of an education, a scholarship, the chance to play, etc. And Condeleeza Rice did open her statement by pointing out the many great things that college athletics provides for thousands of student-athletes. But the issue that the committee was supposed to be addressing was the small percentage of players who are vulnerable to corruption because of how the rules are currently made. And I'm not just talking about the OAD players, this trickles down to players like Brian Bowen and even lower-ranked players at mid-major schools, the types who appeared in that infamous expense report a couple months ago. Yes they are receiving a lot by getting to attend college for free, but when a guy like Bagley could potentially be making millions then the system is still broken in the sense that he's not able to receive what he is worth. Any time you have a gap between what a person is worth and what he is able to receive, there is going to be an opportunity for corruption and that is where we are now.

[sagegrouse]

A couple of things about the limits on the Commission's work and findings.

1. Football and men's basketball are the major financial support for athletic departments and, through them, women's sports and Olympic sports.

2. This is the report of the Commission on College Basketball. It had enough to do without trying to restructure the financial model for all of college sports. Therefore, it is reasonable that it restricted its vision to college hoops and did not try to reduce the net revenue coming from men's hoops to the rest of the university.

Therefore, "paying the players," if not off-limits, was a rabbit hole that the CCB wanted to avoid. Moreover, such payments raise some broad questions -- is the revenue generated by college hoops because of the names on the front of the jerseys or the players' names on the back of the jerseys? Moreover, if the CCB gets its way and HSers go straight to the NCAA, doesn't that also change the calculus of what players earn? Yep, I suppose there are market forces that can be brought to bear, but every league in the world seems to have some version of salary caps or limitations on player compensation -- I don't know why the CCB would wander into this particular swamp.

Now I see that most of the commentators are levying heavy criticisms on the CCB report. Well, isn't it sort of like politics -- no one ever gets punished for voting AGAINST a piece of legislation, but be very careful of what you vote FOR?

I was disappointed in the sense that I thought the CCB would do something about the governance of college hoops. Maybe the group felt that it had consensus on what it did recommend and not enough time to sort out conflicting views on a very different subject.

Now if I can only get down off the soapbox without breaking my neck...



3. The NCAA tournament is the major funder of the NCAA, the organization never being part of the college football bowl revenue scheme. While much of the revenue is distributed to the schools and conferences, enough sticks to the NCAA to pay the administrative costs of the operation, including enforcement.

[cruxer]

A couple of things about the limits on the Commission's work and findings.

1. Football and men's basketball are the major financial support for athletic departments and, through them, women's sports and Olympic sports.

2. This is the report of the Commission on College Basketball. It had enough to do without trying to restructure the financial model for all of college sports. Therefore, it is reasonable that it restricted its vision to college hoops and did not try to reduce the net revenue coming from men's hoops to the rest of the university.

Therefore, "paying the players," if not off-limits, was a rabbit hole that the CCB wanted to avoid. Moreover, such payments raise some broad questions -- is the revenue generated by college hoops because of the names on the front of the jerseys or the players' names on the back of the jerseys? Moreover, if the CCB gets its way and HSers go straight to the NCAA, doesn't that also change the calculus of what players earn? Yep, I suppose there are market forces that can be brought to bear, but every league in the world seems to have some version of salary caps or limitations on player compensation -- I don't know why the CCB would wander into this particular swamp.

...
3. The NCAA tournament is the major funder of the NCAA, the organization never being part of the college football bowl revenue scheme. While much of the revenue is distributed to the schools and conferences, enough sticks to the NCAA to pay the administrative costs of the operation, including enforcement.

If the CCB was created to address the "scandal" of apparel companies covertly sponsoring high school athletes through shady intermediaries, they have failed in every respect. We can argue all we want that the talent is being compensated, but the market vehemently disagrees and is expressing itself through corruption of the existing rules. If Adidas thinks it's worth paying Dennis Smith Jr $40k cash to go to NC State for a year, on what economic theory does the NCAA disagree? I've said this a million times up-thread, but if not for the NCAA rulebook, there would be nothing shady about that arrangement. Adidas didn't give that money as charity, they think they got their money's worth. Maybe they did and maybe they didn't, but that's the kind of decision made in a free market all the time.

A bold commission would have either reduced the rulebook or the revenue. Those 2 things are in eternal conflict in the current model and cannot be reconciled. Saying that the marquee athletes have to sacrifice to support the non-rev sports seems noble, until you realize that it's mostly millionaires forcing that sacrifice on mostly thousandaires who get no say in the matter. There's nothing noble about that.

Salary caps exist in professional sports in the context of collective bargaining, where labor has an equal say to the structure of the economy. Otherwise it would be illegal collusion by ownership, and it would look a heckuva lot like the NCAA.

-c

[sagegrouse]

If the CCB was created to address the "scandal" of apparel companies covertly sponsoring high school athletes through shady intermediaries, they have failed in every respect. We can argue all we want that the talent is being compensated, but the market vehemently disagrees and is expressing itself through corruption of the existing rules. If Adidas thinks it's worth paying Dennis Smith Jr $40k cash to go to NC State for a year, on what economic theory does the NCAA disagree? I've said this a million times up-thread, but if not for the NCAA rulebook, there would be nothing shady about that arrangement. Adidas didn't give that money as charity, they think they got their money's worth. Maybe they did and maybe they didn't, but that's the kind of decision made in a free market all the time.

A bold commission would have either reduced the rulebook or the revenue. Those 2 things are in eternal conflict in the current model and cannot be reconciled. Saying that the marquee athletes have to sacrifice to support the non-rev sports seems noble, until you realize that it's mostly millionaires forcing that sacrifice on mostly thousandaires who get no say in the matter. There's nothing noble about that.

Salary caps exist in professional sports in the context of collective bargaining, where labor has an equal say to the structure of the economy. Otherwise it would be illegal collusion by ownership, and it would look a heckuva lot like the NCAA.

-c

Oh, my. I don't believe the NCAA needs an "economic theory" to agree with its actions. It is a voluntary association of colleges that administers athletic competitions and enforces the rules set by the colleges. If you believe the actions of this not-for-profit entity are illegal under US law, you can follow (or, heck, join) some of the cases going on. I expect that if the colleges begin to experience legal liability within the parameters of what we think of as "college sports," Congress would give the NCAA and the colleges a legal exemption.

[cruxer]

Oh, my. I don't believe the NCAA needs an "economic theory" to agree with its actions. It is a voluntary association of colleges that administers athletic competitions and enforces the rules set by the colleges. If you believe the actions of this not-for-profit entity are illegal under US law, you can follow (or, heck, join) some of the cases going on. I expect that if the colleges begin to experience legal liability within the parameters of what we think of as "college sports," Congress would give the NCAA and the colleges a legal exemption.

lol @ non-profit. Anyway. The NCAA has already considered lobbying for an anti-trust exemption because they fear their situation is untenable. My argument isn't a primarily a legal one, although i stand by the assertion that clearly illegal collusion to supress labor compensation by professional owners would look a lot like the current NCAA. My argument is against all this moral aspersions I see cast about the "corruption" of the current system. That's the context of my economic theory comment. The NCAA member institutions have consulted among themselves and decided to cap the compensation of a labor pool that generates billions in revenue (I'm including CFB here since the caps are no different).

While the organization and its voluntary member institutions nominally make no profit, the actual people who make these decisions make up to millions of dollars a year. Even lesser adults in the system rake it in. The head volleyball coach at Clemson made $90k in 2016. The Director of Football Video & Tech also made $90k. Assistant MBB coaches made ~160k. That likely excludes sponsorships and vehicle allowances these guys get. The head of the NCAA made $1.9M in 2015. The Pac12 commish made $3.4M in 2014. Big Ten - $3.1M. Big 12 - $2.3M. SEC - $2.1M. ACC - $2.0M. These are the very brokers who decide that for "amateurism" players should continue to have no say in their own compensation. It sure looks to me like these power brokers are in fact deciding to pocket the money rather than share. How can we continue to call those compensation levels a-OK while calling Dennis Smith Jr's 40k shady? Again I ask, under what economic theory is Smith's $40k shady?

[Kfanarmy]

Ok, if you guys don't like Bilas for Commish, how about Swofford?

Ducks.

That would be great...Carolina would have a written exception to following NCAA rules and wouldn't have to pretend anymore.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

While the organization and its voluntary member institutions nominally make no profit, the actual people who make these decisions make up to millions of dollars a year. Even lesser adults in the system rake it in. The head volleyball coach at Clemson made $90k in 2016. The Director of Football Video & Tech also made $90k. Assistant MBB coaches made ~160k. That likely excludes sponsorships and vehicle allowances these guys get. The head of the NCAA made $1.9M in 2015. The Pac12 commish made $3.4M in 2014. Big Ten - $3.1M. Big 12 - $2.3M. SEC - $2.1M. ACC - $2.0M. These are the very brokers who decide that for "amateurism" players should continue to have no say in their own compensation. It sure looks to me like these power brokers are in fact deciding to pocket the money rather than share. How can we continue to call those compensation levels a-OK while calling Dennis Smith Jr's 40k shady? Again I ask, under what economic theory is Smith's $40k shady?

You bring up the biggest topic in the PTP movement...the salaries of the administrators and coaches. I'd suggest holding off on slamming the 90K volleyball coach - that is a point against PTP - in that there is excellent coaching now for the non rev sports.

That said, these salaries are a drop in the bucket for the totality of an athletic department's budget, and probably in line with CEOs of similar sized corporations.

[cruxer]

You bring up the biggest topic in the PTP movement...the salaries of the administrators and coaches. I'd suggest holding off on slamming the 90K volleyball coach - that is a point against PTP - in that there is excellent coaching now for the non rev sports.

That said, these salaries are a drop in the bucket for the totality of an athletic department's budget, and probably in line with CEOs of similar sized corporations.

There is excellent coaching (and bad coaching...) at all levels of sport. In 2013, coaches' compensation at the top 10 revenue universities averaged about 35% of the expenses. Scholarships averaged about 10%. A quick perusal of more recent data doesn't show much change in that ratio. No matter how good that volleyball coach is, their value is inflated by the bizarre economic rules of college athletics.

The NCAAs main argument for their ruleset is that these institutions are educational, non-profit entities, so I'm not sure what "similarly sized corporations" have to do with it. Texas A&M had revenues north of $194M in the 2015-2016 academic year. They paid coaches about $40.6M and expensed scholarships worth $9.7M. Can you name a similarly sized corporation who paid their management 21% of revenue while paying labor 5%?

I'm not expressly arguing the universities must pay the players. I am, however, insisting that we look at this economy with empirical eyes. If we want to solve the problems and "corruption," either the money has to change or the rules have to change. It simply isn't sustainable to maintain both. If you look far down that USA Today revenue list, you'll find that as you leave the big money programs, the coach compensation and player compensation line up far more equitably. #68 Arkansas State pays coaches about $7.2M and expenses about $6.8 in schollys. I'd bet those guys magically have much less "corruption." Trying to address the problem without acknowledging that is (spitting) in the wind.

[sagegrouse]

There is excellent coaching (and bad coaching...) at all levels of sport. In 2013, coaches' compensation at the top 10 revenue universities averaged about 35% of the expenses. Scholarships averaged about 10%. A quick perusal of more recent data doesn't show much change in that ratio. No matter how good that volleyball coach is, their value is inflated by the bizarre economic rules of college athletics.

The NCAAs main argument for their ruleset is that these institutions are educational, non-profit entities, so I'm not sure what "similarly sized corporations" have to do with it. Texas A&M had revenues north of $194M in the 2015-2016 academic year. They paid coaches about $40.6M and expensed scholarships worth $9.7M. Can you name a similarly sized corporation who paid their management 21% of revenue while paying labor 5%?

I'm not expressly arguing the universities must pay the players. I am, however, insisting that we look at this economy with empirical eyes. If we want to solve the problems and "corruption," either the money has to change or the rules have to change. It simply isn't sustainable to maintain both. If you look far down that USA Today revenue list, you'll find that as you leave the big money programs, the coach compensation and player compensation line up far more equitably. #68 Arkansas State pays coaches about $7.2M and expenses about $6.8 in schollys. I'd bet those guys magically have much less "corruption." Trying to address the problem without acknowledging that is (spitting) in the wind.

There is a difference, isn't there, between "certitude" and "certainty?"

I would offer that the NCAA schools' (the NCAA being but a subordinate body) main arguments for the current system of rules is (a) the systmn almost magically provides funding for lots and lots of athletic scholarships in sports that do not generate revenue; (b) it provides a high level of competition in almost all sports, which excites the constituents of the universities (and -- for football and men's hoops -- is part of the magic behind point a.); (c) it provides a college education for many students who would not otherwise be able to attend; (d) although a tortuous path, it links the present to the earliest days of college sports, providing tradition and building support.

If you are saying there are stresses in the current system that will be very difficult to solve, I agree with you. If you are saying the situation is hopeless, and we should scrap the entire system and start over, I refer you to points a, b, c, and d. That, kind sir or madam, is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

There is excellent coaching (and bad coaching...) at all levels of sport. In 2013, coaches' compensation at the top 10 revenue universities averaged about 35% of the expenses. Scholarships averaged about 10%. A quick perusal of more recent data doesn't show much change in that ratio. No matter how good that volleyball coach is, their value is inflated by the bizarre economic rules of college athletics.

The NCAAs main argument for their ruleset is that these institutions are educational, non-profit entities, so I'm not sure what "similarly sized corporations" have to do with it. Texas A&M had revenues north of $194M in the 2015-2016 academic year. They paid coaches about $40.6M and expensed scholarships worth $9.7M. Can you name a similarly sized corporation who paid their management 21% of revenue while paying labor 5%?

I'm not expressly arguing the universities must pay the players. I am, however, insisting that we look at this economy with empirical eyes. If we want to solve the problems and "corruption," either the money has to change or the rules have to change. It simply isn't sustainable to maintain both. If you look far down that USA Today revenue list, you'll find that as you leave the big money programs, the coach compensation and player compensation line up far more equitably. #68 Arkansas State pays coaches about $7.2M and expenses about $6.8 in schollys. I'd bet those guys magically have much less "corruption." Trying to address the problem without acknowledging that is (spitting) in the wind.

You make a few analogy mistakes with all due respect. First of all, coaches ARE labor...only the Athletic Director would be management under this comparison. That would change your figures completely. Second, I bet the 2013 figures are significantly wrong now. Third, while your statement on good and bad coaching is of course true in a vacuum, please tell me you aren't seriously doubting that the over all increase in coaching compensations for the non revenue sports hasn't raised that level on the whole. Of course it has. Fourth, to only count scholarships as a player compensation is simply not correct. Room, board, medical, other training, etc. Fifth, are facilities not spending on the players? To have state of the art facilities?

And then how do you factor in, for example, Clemson's 55 million dollar athletic center for players?

[UrinalCake]

Yesterday’s draft (and Duval in particular) got me thinking what would have happened had the proposed rule been in place to allow undrafted players to return to school. Would Duval have chosen not to hire an agent, leaving the door open to return? He seems like the perfect example of why that rule would be good for college players. Malik Newman would be another example, as another poster brought up in the draft thread. Kansas would be preseason #1 had he returned. My guess though is that Duval would have hired an agent anyways, because an agent is really helpful in navigating the process and setting up workouts with teams.

[sagegrouse]

Yesterday’s draft (and Duval in particular) got me thinking what would have happened had the proposed rule been in place to allow undrafted players to return to school. Would Duval have chosen not to hire an agent, leaving the door open to return? He seems like the perfect example of why that rule would be good for college players. Malik Newman would be another example, as another poster brought up in the draft thread. Kansas would be preseason #1 had he returned. My guess though is that Duval would have hired an agent anyways, because an agent is really helpful in navigating the process and setting up workouts with teams.

My working assumption about Trevon, and Gary as well, is that they like Coach K and their teammates, appreciate their fans and aren't staying in college more than one year, no matter what.

Maybe it's really simple: as Big John Thompson said on his radio show a few years after Allen Iverson went early to the draft, "Sometimes players hate to go to class."

[75Crazie]

Maybe it's really simple: as Big John Thompson said on his radio show a few years after Allen Iverson went early to the draft, "Sometimes players hate to go to class."

My corollary: Sometimes players do not belong in class.

It continues to elude my understanding as to why one year's participation in college classes is a prerequisite for participation in the NBA; similarly, why three years participation is a requirement for the NFL.

[Sir Stealth]

My working assumption about Trevon, and Gary as well, is that they like Coach K and their teammates, appreciate their fans and aren't staying in college more than one year, no matter what.

Maybe it's really simple: as Big John Thompson said on his radio show a few years after Allen Iverson went early to the draft, "Sometimes players hate to go to class."

I agree with the overall sentiment but think it's more than just not wanting to do college work. Their goal is to play basketball professionally. As Duke fans we place a high value on what the program can do to improve players and aid in the goal of being professional basketball players. But there are other ways to go about growing as a player, and an increasing number of opportunities to progress outside of college basketball. For players like Tre and Gary who believe in their talent and have been singularly focused on their goal well before coming to Duke, they want to move forward with their careers whether they have to go to class or not. It's not that they don't value the Duke experience, but they came here based on the idea that one year got them into the brotherhood for life. They put their names on the big stage, did an internship of sorts under Coach K, and are ready to get on with moving toward their ultimate goals.

I'm just about 100% certain that Trevon would not have come back for another year of college basketball even if he knew he was going undrafted. He was always going to be focused on moving forward. I think that if you told him he still had to go to classes but could move on toward his goal of playing professionally, vs. going to a UNC-like school where he didn't have to go to class but would still have to play amateur basketball, he would still go pro.

Edit: thought that Duval hadn't participated in combine scrimmages, but it looks like I may have been mistaken.

[UrinalCake]

Silver made some comments that the league is ready to move the age limit down to 18, and that it will be discussed with the Players Union. Some reports say it could happen as early as 2021. This would be a welcome change IMO. It won’t solve all of college basketball’s problems, but it will be a good first step.

[sagegrouse]

Silver made some comments that the league is ready to move the age limit down to 18, and that it will be discussed with the Players Union. Some reports say it could happen as early as 2021. This would be a welcome change IMO. It won’t solve all of college basketball’s problems, but it will be a good first step.

Silver implicitly cited the Commission on Basketball, headed by Condi Rice and featuring a number of commissioners with Duke ties (Grant, David Robinson, Gen. Dempsey).

Here is its first block of recommendations:

Create Realistic Pathways for Student-Athlete Success

• Separate the collegiate track from the professional track by ending one-and-done.
• Allow student-athletes to test their professional prospects and maintain their eligibility if they do not sign a professional contract.
• Permit students to receive meaningful assessment of professional prospects earlier with assistance from certified agents.
• Provide resources to make the promise of a college education real.