PDA

View Full Version : Posnanski on why college players should not get paid



94duke
07-29-2011, 09:11 AM
Posnanski on why college players should not get paid (more than they already do):
http://joeposnanski.si.com/2011/07/28/the-college-connection/?xid=cnnbin&hpt=hp_bn10

This is his counter argument to an earlier article by Michael Rosenberg on why college players should get paid.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/michael_rosenberg/07/25/ncaa.pay/index.html?eref=sihp&sct=hp_t13_a2

This discussion comes up from time-to-time, but I really liked the way Posnanski presented his case.

Wheat/"/"/"
07-29-2011, 09:26 AM
If you guys don't follow @JayBilas on twitter you're missing out..he often has witty and reasonable replies to people who can't seem to grasp that elite athletes are being taken advantage of by the NCAA and the institutions.

...besides that, he's just one of the funnest guys on them internets to follow. :)

arnie
07-29-2011, 10:37 AM
If you guys don't follow @JayBilas on twitter you're missing out..he often has witty and reasonable replies to people who can't seem to grasp that elite athletes are being taken advantage of by the NCAA and the institutions.

...besides that, he's just one of the funnest guys on them internets to follow. :)

I guess I can't grasp it - let's see, John Wall goes to KY less than a year and then becomes a multi millionaire (in part due to his play at KY). So KY should have paid him more?

uh_no
07-29-2011, 10:51 AM
If you guys don't follow @JayBilas on twitter you're missing out..he often has witty and reasonable replies to people who can't seem to grasp that elite athletes are being taken advantage of by the NCAA and the institutions.

...besides that, he's just one of the funnest guys on them internets to follow. :)

I find that while I like jay, he doesn't really respond to the arguments, but uses more rhetoric which is becoming tired. Perhaps its my personal bias on the subject, but I find anything he writes about it to be unreadable.

ElSid
07-29-2011, 11:53 AM
@jaybilas is not arguing that athletes should be paid by universities. he's arguing they should be give relative free reign to profit otherwise. if you're a phenom computer programmer, you can make tens of thousands of dollars in a summer at IBM or MSFT. As a college athlete, you're limited to $2k or something...even if you got the AB Duke Scholly. I've found him to be pretty balanced, actually. He just says, let open market handle things and you will kill the sketchy black market where World Wide Wes acts as Dark Lord. Black market is bad. Bad people profit because of this and, believe it or not, college kids do get exploited. Kids get punished because they take money. They are poor and impressionable and maybe not bright, and you high horse people come down hard with your moralizing. I agree full force with @jaybilas.

cato
07-29-2011, 11:56 AM
I guess I can't grasp it - let's see, John Wall goes to KY less than a year and then becomes a multi millionaire (in part due to his play at KY). So KY should have paid him more?

To borrow from Jay's most recent line of argument: so, you're fine with student journalists getting paid to cover teams, but the players themselves can't earn money on the side?

Olympic Fan
07-29-2011, 11:59 AM
Jay is a smart, witty guy, but that doesn't mean he's always right.

He's not -- the response to the "poor exploited athlete" mantra is not always simple, but arnie offered a good counter example.

Let me start by saying a lot of what Bilas and the like (including Big 10 commish Jim Delaney) spout about the NCAA and how underpaid college athletes is bull manure (can a say that without triggering the DBR's filter?). Delaney says the scholarship doesn't pay the full cost of attending college. Really? I know that almost every athlete who was at Pinehurst earlier this week was asked by a certain reporter to elaborate on what is not covered. Not a single player could come up with an expense that was not covered by the basic scholarship or the Stundent Athlete Assistance Fund.

Tuition? covered.
Fees? covered.
Room and board (including meals -- the image of college athletes going hungry is ahuge lie)? covered.
How about travel expenses ... guess what -- they're covered too,. In fact, the frequently used sob story about the kid unable to fly home for his grandmother's funeral was exploded by N.C. State's Audie Cole, who got money from the SAAF for precisely that reason last year.
Players get allowances for clothes and to by needed equipment (such as laptops).

What are they missing?
Well, I do hear complaints that they don't have spending money to go out on the town with their buddies. And there's no money to buy them cars (although an amazing number of athletes seem to have nice cars -- even ones from poor backgrounds).

The fact is that in return for their athletic contribution, student-athletes receive a free eduation ... completely free in every respect. How much money would your parents be able to provide you if they didn't have to pay your tuition, your fees, your room, your meals and every other incidental expense while you were in college? Maybe you come from a poor background ... then you can add to your free education with a Pell Grant. A federal grant that is awarded on need, more than 53 percent of BCS football and basketball players receive up to $5,500 a year (the average is $3,200). In addition to that, athletes usually work nice jobs during the summer for nice money (although ESPN's college football writer, Eamon Brennan, didn't know that -- he wrote that athletes weren't allowed to work. In fact, they are allowed to work DURING the season, although that's almost impossible).

I understand that people get outraged to see colleges making money selling jersies or signing big TV contracts. But all that income goes to pay for athletes -- men's college basketball and big-time college football are the ONLY sports that make any money. They have to pay for soccer, golf, swimming, baseball, wrestling and every single women's sport. In 2009, the last year we have full records, just 19 schools made a profit on athletics -- the other 300-plus division 1 basketball and almost every non-D1 school had to take money from the general fund to cover sports losses.

The idea that players are exploited is based on a false concept for college sports. Last week at Pinehurst, Johnny Swofford justly received criticism for dodging questions about the UNC scandal. But he made a very important point during his talk -- there's a war between the commercial model in college sports and the collegiate model. Are college teams are professional entertainment enties or are they extentions of the educational process.

That's an important question -- a tax lawyer pointed out to me that the justification for allowing donations to college athletic departments to be written off is that as of now, the government sees college athletics as an educational activity. If it ever becomes a commercial activity, those Iron Duke or Rams Club dollars with no longer be tax write offs.

Right now we're in a war between those who want college athletics to remain an extention of the univerity -- played by real student athletes (who receive an extremely valuable education for their services) and those who want a pro model and don't care whether their performers are students or not (obviously for a Cam Newton or a Marvin Austin, the opportunity to get a degree is not much compensation).

Personally, I think Jay Bilas is on the wrong side in that war. At least he's not on Duke's side.

tux
07-29-2011, 01:34 PM
Jay is a smart, witty guy, but that doesn't mean he's always right.

He's not -- the response to the "poor exploited athlete" mantra is not always simple, but arnie offered a good counter example.

Let me start by saying a lot of what Bilas and the like (including Big 10 commish Jim Delaney) spout about the NCAA and how underpaid college athletes is bull manure (can a say that without triggering the DBR's filter?). Delaney says the scholarship doesn't pay the full cost of attending college. Really? I know that almost every athlete who was at Pinehurst earlier this week was asked by a certain reporter to elaborate on what is not covered. Not a single player could come up with an expense that was not covered by the basic scholarship or the Stundent Athlete Assistance Fund.

Tuition? covered.
Fees? covered.
Room and board (including meals -- the image of college athletes going hungry is ahuge lie)? covered.
How about travel expenses ... guess what -- they're covered too,. In fact, the frequently used sob story about the kid unable to fly home for his grandmother's funeral was exploded by N.C. State's Audie Cole, who got money from the SAAF for precisely that reason last year.
Players get allowances for clothes and to by needed equipment (such as laptops).

What are they missing?
Well, I do hear complaints that they don't have spending money to go out on the town with their buddies. And there's no money to buy them cars (although an amazing number of athletes seem to have nice cars -- even ones from poor backgrounds).

The fact is that in return for their athletic contribution, student-athletes receive a free eduation ... completely free in every respect. How much money would your parents be able to provide you if they didn't have to pay your tuition, your fees, your room, your meals and every other incidental expense while you were in college? Maybe you come from a poor background ... then you can add to your free education with a Pell Grant. A federal grant that is awarded on need, more than 53 percent of BCS football and basketball players receive up to $5,500 a year (the average is $3,200). In addition to that, athletes usually work nice jobs during the summer for nice money (although ESPN's college football writer, Eamon Brennan, didn't know that -- he wrote that athletes weren't allowed to work. In fact, they are allowed to work DURING the season, although that's almost impossible).

I understand that people get outraged to see colleges making money selling jersies or signing big TV contracts. But all that income goes to pay for athletes -- men's college basketball and big-time college football are the ONLY sports that make any money. They have to pay for soccer, golf, swimming, baseball, wrestling and every single women's sport. In 2009, the last year we have full records, just 19 schools made a profit on athletics -- the other 300-plus division 1 basketball and almost every non-D1 school had to take money from the general fund to cover sports losses.

The idea that players are exploited is based on a false concept for college sports. Last week at Pinehurst, Johnny Swofford justly received criticism for dodging questions about the UNC scandal. But he made a very important point during his talk -- there's a war between the commercial model in college sports and the collegiate model. Are college teams are professional entertainment enties or are they extentions of the educational process.

That's an important question -- a tax lawyer pointed out to me that the justification for allowing donations to college athletic departments to be written off is that as of now, the government sees college athletics as an educational activity. If it ever becomes a commercial activity, those Iron Duke or Rams Club dollars with no longer be tax write offs.

Right now we're in a war between those who want college athletics to remain an extention of the univerity -- played by real student athletes (who receive an extremely valuable education for their services) and those who want a pro model and don't care whether their performers are students or not (obviously for a Cam Newton or a Marvin Austin, the opportunity to get a degree is not much compensation).

Personally, I think Jay Bilas is on the wrong side in that war. At least he's not on Duke's side.


I also didn't know that about student-athletes being able to work during the summer or the season. I thought the problem with that was the potential for jobs to turn into easy ways to funnel money to players; I'm assuming there's some safe-guards (or reporting requirements) that address those concerns?

Anyway, I'm in your camp on this one.

I think the issue Bilas' idea addresses is the one where folks have to decide exactly which athletes should get compensated and by how much. As an example: It's easy to consider the fact that Grant Hill was responsible for making the University a certain amount of money from 90-94, but should Marty Clark have been paid as well? How would the money get distributed? Jay's idea addresses this by allowing the marketable players to get paid via the free market.

I think this view of paying the players sorta assumes that college sports is pretty much like pro sports in that it's being run by business people and if they negotiate an X billion dollar TV deal then it's a reflection of their great marketing and business skills; in that scenario, I'd be a lot more sympathetic to the whole "exploited athlete" meme. But, I think the popularity of college sports is already baked into the cake, so to speak. I.e., I don't watch Duke basketball instead of American Idol b/c it's winning my "entertainment dollar" but b/c I went to Duke -- no good or bad business decisions by the ACC or NCAA are going to change my desire to follow Duke basketball. Texas can have it's own cable channel b/c Texas is a big school in a big state with a lot of rabid UT fans, not b/c the AD at Texas is some crackerjack marketing guy (although he could be, I have no idea.)

Duvall
07-29-2011, 01:45 PM
To borrow from Jay's most recent line of argument: so, you're fine with student journalists getting paid to cover teams, but the players themselves can't earn money on the side?

Yes. Shouldn't we be? Nike will never offer million dollar bonuses to student beat writers, and no booster will ever give a dubious endorsement deal to the school's sports editor. When did it become a problem to have different rules for different situations?

(I'm actually not okay with student journalists getting paid - not out of some sense of fairness or devotion to amateurism, but because almost all student journalists are terrible.)

magjayran
07-29-2011, 04:34 PM
Jay is a smart, witty guy, but that doesn't mean he's always right.

He's not -- the response to the "poor exploited athlete" mantra is not always simple, but arnie offered a good counter example.

Let me start by saying a lot of what Bilas and the like (including Big 10 commish Jim Delaney) spout about the NCAA and how underpaid college athletes is bull manure (can a say that without triggering the DBR's filter?). Delaney says the scholarship doesn't pay the full cost of attending college. Really? I know that almost every athlete who was at Pinehurst earlier this week was asked by a certain reporter to elaborate on what is not covered. Not a single player could come up with an expense that was not covered by the basic scholarship or the Stundent Athlete Assistance Fund.

Tuition? covered.
Fees? covered.
Room and board (including meals -- the image of college athletes going hungry is ahuge lie)? covered.
How about travel expenses ... guess what -- they're covered too,. In fact, the frequently used sob story about the kid unable to fly home for his grandmother's funeral was exploded by N.C. State's Audie Cole, who got money from the SAAF for precisely that reason last year.
Players get allowances for clothes and to by needed equipment (such as laptops).

What are they missing?
Well, I do hear complaints that they don't have spending money to go out on the town with their buddies. And there's no money to buy them cars (although an amazing number of athletes seem to have nice cars -- even ones from poor backgrounds).

The fact is that in return for their athletic contribution, student-athletes receive a free eduation ... completely free in every respect. How much money would your parents be able to provide you if they didn't have to pay your tuition, your fees, your room, your meals and every other incidental expense while you were in college? Maybe you come from a poor background ... then you can add to your free education with a Pell Grant. A federal grant that is awarded on need, more than 53 percent of BCS football and basketball players receive up to $5,500 a year (the average is $3,200). In addition to that, athletes usually work nice jobs during the summer for nice money (although ESPN's college football writer, Eamon Brennan, didn't know that -- he wrote that athletes weren't allowed to work. In fact, they are allowed to work DURING the season, although that's almost impossible).

I understand that people get outraged to see colleges making money selling jersies or signing big TV contracts. But all that income goes to pay for athletes -- men's college basketball and big-time college football are the ONLY sports that make any money. They have to pay for soccer, golf, swimming, baseball, wrestling and every single women's sport. In 2009, the last year we have full records, just 19 schools made a profit on athletics -- the other 300-plus division 1 basketball and almost every non-D1 school had to take money from the general fund to cover sports losses.

The idea that players are exploited is based on a false concept for college sports. Last week at Pinehurst, Johnny Swofford justly received criticism for dodging questions about the UNC scandal. But he made a very important point during his talk -- there's a war between the commercial model in college sports and the collegiate model. Are college teams are professional entertainment enties or are they extentions of the educational process.

That's an important question -- a tax lawyer pointed out to me that the justification for allowing donations to college athletic departments to be written off is that as of now, the government sees college athletics as an educational activity. If it ever becomes a commercial activity, those Iron Duke or Rams Club dollars with no longer be tax write offs.

Right now we're in a war between those who want college athletics to remain an extention of the univerity -- played by real student athletes (who receive an extremely valuable education for their services) and those who want a pro model and don't care whether their performers are students or not (obviously for a Cam Newton or a Marvin Austin, the opportunity to get a degree is not much compensation).

Personally, I think Jay Bilas is on the wrong side in that war. At least he's not on Duke's side.

But then why shouldn't they be able to use the Olympic model?

Duvall
07-29-2011, 04:45 PM
But then why shouldn't they be able to use the Olympic model?

Because allowing shoe companies and boosters to buy talent for their preferred teams would quickly make college sports not worth watching.

Wheat/"/"/"
07-29-2011, 05:32 PM
I have yet to hear an argument on allowing athletes to earn income for their skills from Jay that was not reasonable to me.

IMO, The NCAA, or an institution, has no right to inhibit a student athlete, or any other student, from realizing his/her value in the business world.

If Nike wants to pay Grant Hill big money, fine. If they don't want to pay Marty Clark, or they want to pay Marty less, fine.
Performance/free market will make that call as to who's worth what to whom.

People like to argue that athletes are getting paid, with scholarships, food, board etc...that's all good, its the choice the school and athlete made together, but why is it that its all they should be allowed to be paid?
What gives the NCAA the right to decide what amount is the right amount?

A free market should make that decision.

IMO, they are being used.
Used to generate billions of dollars for the NCAA and its member schools. And that would be OK if the athletes were allowed to make an income off their talents as well.

Its fundamentally unfair and "un-American" to the talented individual... if you believe in a free market society.

magjayran
07-29-2011, 05:38 PM
Because allowing shoe companies and boosters to buy talent for their preferred teams would quickly make college sports not worth watching.

You think Oregon would dominate the college sports world with the Olympic model in effect?

Duvall
07-29-2011, 05:38 PM
What gives the NCAA the right to decide what amount is the right amount?

The fact that the player has made the free and willing choice to become an NCAA student-athlete. If a player doesn't want to be bound by NCAA rules, he is free to leave at any time to sign any contract available to him. But there's no free market principle that precludes an adult (even a young adult) from entering an agreement with an institution to accept one form of compensation and forego others.

Duvall
07-29-2011, 05:39 PM
You think Oregon would dominate the college sports world with the Olympic model in effect?

I'm fairly certain that they would. But if it were just Oregon, it wouldn't be worth worrying about.

wilko
07-29-2011, 05:45 PM
I posted something along these lines a while back... (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?24025-The-Kyrie-Irving-Mason-Plumlee-NBA-Draft-Vigil&p=495094#post495094)

If you eliminate the George Masons or the Butlers from the deep tourney run, or if and the title rotates between the 3 top contenders every yr its going to lose a lot of luster.

Wheat/"/"/"
07-29-2011, 06:03 PM
The fact that the player has made the free and willing choice to become an NCAA student-athlete. If a player doesn't want to be bound by NCAA rules, he is free to leave at any time to sign any contract available to him. But there's no free market principle that precludes an adult (even a young adult) from entering an agreement with an institution to accept one form of compensation and forego others.

Free and willing? The NCAA has a monopoly for all intents and purposes. Their way or the highway.

Jeremy Tyler (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/744960-2011-nba-draft-results-grades-reaction-for-each-pick/entry/100498-2011-nba-draft-results-charlotte-bobcats-take-jeremy-tyler-at-no-39) is a prime example of whats wrong with the system.

Duvall
07-29-2011, 06:13 PM
Free and willing? The NCAA has a monopoly for all intents and purposes. Their way or the highway.


Monopoly? There's a fairly successful football and a moderately successful basketball league that would probably disagree with that.

It's not the NCAA's fault that Jeremy Tyler was foolish enough to trust his career to Makhtar Ndaiye.

ikiru36
07-29-2011, 06:27 PM
Free and willing? The NCAA has a monopoly for all intents and purposes. Their way or the highway.

Jeremy Tyler (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/744960-2011-nba-draft-results-grades-reaction-for-each-pick/entry/100498-2011-nba-draft-results-charlotte-bobcats-take-jeremy-tyler-at-no-39) is a prime example of whats wrong with the system.

Actually, I think that Jeremy Tyler's biggest problem was that his agent and primary mentor in his initial overseas travels was one Makhtar Ndiaye.

In any event, if that's your prime example, Jeremy Tyler has already gotten to draw a solid salary (I believe with room and board already provided) while spending time playing basketball and living in Israel and Japan. And despite his having major attitude and maturity issues during his time in Israel, he still ended up being drafted into the NBA when he was 19 years old. Sure it was in the second round, but he retains every opportunity to earn his keep in the NBA. Additionally, he actually seems like a decent kid who has grown and learned somewhat from his overseas experiences. As a Golden State Warriors fan, I very much hope for him to be successful.

Go Duke!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Go Blue Devils!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GTHCGTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

loldevilz
07-29-2011, 07:11 PM
A free market should make that decision.


The universities don't need superstars. If they just had kids that wanted to get an education (which is the vast majority of them) they would still make a bunch of money off college basketball. In fact I think most universities (except for Kentucky) would prefer to abolish the one-and-done rule and let the superstars skip college.

As coach K said, Duke is not here for basketball, basketball is here for Duke. In a time when governments and universities are struggling to stay solvent, when America has a serious education problem, it would be wise to concentrate the funds of American universities on teaching kids rather than paying its sports stars.

That being said, I don't see anything wrong with giving the kids 1,500 bucks to eat out every once in a while. Many of these kids come from really poor backgrounds.

MarkD83
07-29-2011, 07:28 PM
In the current world free market needs to be defined.

An 18 year basketball player like Jeremy Tyler can go play basketball and get paid. He just has to do it in Israel and Japan. He may have a dream to play in the NBA or get paid while in college, but the free market exists for him to get paid just not where he wants to be.

Back to the journalist comparison. You may want to work for the Wall Street Journal or NY Times. However, you can get paid to be a reporter in some small town or do it for free as an intern to gain the experience needed to get the WSJ or NYT job.

Free market does not mean best job. It just means A job and that job could be somewhere you don't want to stay for a long time.

----

There is a different side to this that I do think the NCAA needs to consider. If a student athlete gets a job unrelated to his sport then the restriction on being paid should be lifted. I believe Shane Battier interned in Washington DC one summer. If that had been a paid internship would he have had to turn it down or lose eligibility. The argument that this is hard to monitor and that someone may get a nice job because he is an athlete may have some weight. However, better to have these jobs out in the open so that they can be vetted.

Wheat/"/"/"
07-29-2011, 07:29 PM
Monopoly? There's a fairly successful football and a moderately successful basketball league that would probably disagree with that.

It's not the NCAA's fault that Jeremy Tyler was foolish enough to trust his career to Makhtar Ndaiye.

So I assume you are making the point that you think the NBA and the NFL are competitors to the NCAA?

OK then, if that's the case, and its a level playing field, why do those two competitors pay their "workers" when the NCAA does not? And why should they,(NCAA), deny anyone else from paying them?

Could paying players be because the NBA and the NFL are nice guys?

Or could it be that the NCAA is not a competitor with the NBA and the NFL and they don't pay them because they don't have to and they know those kids have no other fair option.

J. Tyler needed money by all accounts I read, which pushed him into skipping school.

In a better system, he could have gone to school, been paid, (not by the school, but by whoever wanted to pay him), received some education and the school/NCAA could have still made plenty of money off his skills.

MarkD83
07-29-2011, 07:45 PM
OK then, if that's the case, and its a level playing field, why do those two competitors pay their "workers" when the NCAA does not?

In a better system, he could have gone to school, been paid, (not by the school, but by whoever wanted to pay him), received some education and the school/NCAA could have still made plenty of money off his skills.

The comments in bold got me thinking about what is the appeal of playing in college.

The NCAA like playing overseas is a pathway to the NBA. So the competitors to the NCAA would be these foreign leagues.

The NCAA gives a player more exposure than if he played overseas. If you go to any of the big schools (lets say Duke or UNC) at least 15-20 of your teams games are on TV and it is easy for the NBA execs to scout you. The exposure also lets the Nikes of the world see if you would be a good spokesperson. Putting a price tag on this exposure and comparing it to being paid overseas needs to be considered.

The other point is if your goal is to play in the NBA than getting exposure is what the NCAA offers. The education and any salary would be superfluous. If you stayed one year took 8 classes and got $25,000, 3 years into the NBA the money would be meaningless and the classes would make you a more educated person but would not mean anything in terms of your value to an NBA team.

Indoor66
07-29-2011, 07:57 PM
So I assume you are making the point that you think the NBA and the NFL are competitors to the NCAA?

OK then, if that's the case, and its a level playing field, why do those two competitors pay their "workers" when the NCAA does not? And why should they,(NCAA), deny anyone else from paying them?

Could paying players be because the NBA and the NFL are nice guys?

Or could it be that the NCAA is not a competitor with the NBA and the NFL and they don't pay them because they don't have to and they know those kids have no other fair option.

J. Tyler needed money by all accounts I read, which pushed him into skipping school.

In a better system, he could have gone to school, been paid, (not by the school, but by whoever wanted to pay him), received some education and the school/NCAA could have still made plenty of money off his skills.

My problem with going down the paid college athlete road is what about all of the college athletes that don't get paid because they are not marketable enough or play a sport that the public will not pay for? Where do we draw the line on who gets paid and who does not? Just Basketball and Football? Maybe also LAX - at a lesser level? Soccer - popular over most of the world - for men but not so much for women. What about the swim team or cross country? How do you balance this with the Title 9 issues of equality and balance?

I see paying college athletes, beyond the present levels, to be unworkable. What does Barton or Elon or Catawba or Franklin & Marshall, etc., do to stay in the game at any level? If they are forced out, where do those thousands of athletes go to secure scholarship aid? Lots of problems.

Acymetric
07-29-2011, 08:07 PM
My problem with going down the paid college athlete road is what about all of the college athletes that don't get paid because they are not marketable enough or play a sport that the public will not pay for? Where do we draw the line on who gets paid and who does not? Just Basketball and Football? Maybe also LAX - at a lesser level? Soccer - popular over most of the world - for men but not so much for women. What about the swim team or cross country? How do you balance this with the Title 9 issues of equality and balance?

I see paying college athletes, beyond the present levels, to be unworkable. What does Barton or Elon or Catawba or Franklin & Marshall, etc., do to stay in the game at any level? If they are forced out, where do those thousands of athletes go to secure scholarship aid? Lots of problems.

Exactly. When talking about players "being taken advantage of" we're talking about an extremely small percentage of athletes at a given school and an even smaller percentage nationwide when non-BCS schools are included. Its not as big as people would have you to believe.

Wheat/"/"/"
07-29-2011, 08:51 PM
My problem with going down the paid college athlete road is what about all of the college athletes that don't get paid because they are not marketable enough or play a sport that the public will not pay for?

They're not being paid now, right? So if no-one wants to pay them, they won't get paid in the future either. The "lesser" talents may only get scholarships, the lessor still may only get the opportunity to be a walkon. The lesser still don't get to play...and so on...it's a cruel world.

If somebody, anybody, wants to pay them, and things are out in the open so there is no criminal activity, (gambling etc...) How can a system be right, in this country, that denies an individual compensation for their talents?

So it's OK for the institution, (school/NCAA), to use those same player talents for their benefit, but not OK for the player to be compensated?

Unfair and just not right in my book.

If the school/institution doesn't want to pay them, fine, free country, don't offer to pay them. They can make the argument that an education and the stage they have created is enough for their contribution as compensation.

But they have no right to deny anyone else from paying them.

Wheat/"/"/"
07-29-2011, 09:13 PM
What does Barton or Elon or Catawba or Franklin & Marshall, etc., do to stay in the game at any level? If they are forced out, where do those thousands of athletes go to secure scholarship aid? Lots of problems.

Nothing would really change, no-one would be forced out.

But by allowing players to be paid...the stud Barton player, for example, might just be offered a chance from the local Wilson Ford dealership to appear in a car ad. It wouldn't cost the school anything to allow that player to "cash in" and make whatever few bucks that dealership would be willing to pay because his talent had made him recognizable enough to be a pitchman.

Acymetric
07-29-2011, 09:33 PM
Nothing would really change, no-one would be forced out.

But by allowing players to be paid...the stud Barton player, for example, might just be offered a chance from the local Wilson Ford dealership to appear in a car ad. It wouldn't cost the school anything to allow that player to "cash in" and make whatever few bucks that dealership would be willing to pay because his talent had made him recognizable enough to be a pitchman.

And you don't see how this could be abused? How it would totally change the way recruiting pitches work?

"Hey we've got a lot of businesses that will pay you to be in ads if you come here and you're a standout..."

Wheat/"/"/"
07-29-2011, 09:44 PM
And you don't see how this could be abused? How it would totally change the way recruiting pitches work?

"Hey we've got a lot of businesses that will pay you to be in ads if you come here and you're a standout..."

Maybe it would change recruiting some, but why would that be considered abuse?

Acymetric
07-29-2011, 09:49 PM
Maybe it would change recruiting some, but why would that be considered abuse?

If you don't mind opening the door for boosters to pay players to attend a school then I guess it wouldn't be.

Dukeface88
07-29-2011, 10:26 PM
The NCAA has a monopoly for all intents and purposes.

And? Even if the NCAA was a monopoly (it isn't; aside from the overseas leagues others have mentioned, there's also the D-League), monopolies are ubiquitous in a free market.



I'd also like to point out that the NCAA isn't the only student organization that limits employment for its members. To use an example I'm personally acquainted with, the ABA restricts the hours first year law students can work, and they don't give out free educations in return (much less the added perks that athletes enjoy).

Wheat/"/"/"
07-29-2011, 10:29 PM
If you don't mind opening the door for boosters to pay players to attend a school then I guess it wouldn't be.

Fair enough, and that could be a problem that would need to be addressed. Nothings perfect.

There should still be standards, no argument there. All outside payments/contracts could be required to be reviewed by an NCAA committee, limitations/penalties could be put on boosters that tried to pay without players performing a legitimate service, otherwise go to the D-league and play, which is a better argument as a competitor for the NCAA than the NBA.

Maintaining basic academic standards should be a standard as well...don't go to class, don't get to play. They should still be considered students first at that level, or go pro.

Wheat/"/"/"
07-29-2011, 10:52 PM
I'd also like to point out that the NCAA isn't the only student organization that limits employment for its members. To use an example I'm personally acquainted with, the ABA restricts the hours first year law students can work, and they don't give out free educations in return (much less the added perks that athletes enjoy).

And I'd like to point out that the ABA is not making billions of dollars riding the coattails of law students, the ABA is trying to elevate quality and standards with their rules. I see that as a different institution.

IMO, The NCAA is simply using the select few athletes that any of this is even an issue for as a cash cow... refusing to allow them to be compensated to protect the NCAA's own selfish interests.

magjayran
07-30-2011, 01:14 AM
If you don't mind opening the door for boosters to pay players to attend a school then I guess it wouldn't be.

I don't mind opening the door for individuals that own businesses paying for players to endorse those businesses. If those businesses overpay players and it adversely effects then they will suffer for it.

Richard Berg
07-30-2011, 03:18 AM
Linked from Joe's article was a much more practical, sensible, and broad-ranging set of suggestions for the NCAA: Rewriting NCAA rulebook (Andy Staples, SI) (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/andy_staples/07/26/new.rules/index.html).

Andy is spot on in every case. (finally someone who gets it!) And frankly, he doesn't even disagree with Joe Posnanski. If you read carefully, they approach the same issues and reach very similar conclusions, merely from different angles.

Richard Berg
07-30-2011, 03:53 AM
Exactly. When talking about players "being taken advantage of" we're talking about an extremely small percentage of athletes at a given school and an even smaller percentage nationwide when non-BCS schools are included. Its not as big as people would have you to believe.
Disagree completely. It's the players at the level of, say, Brian Zoubek who stand the lose the most from today's NCAA. Much as it pains me to say, Big Z will probably never be as famous as he was in 2010. Yet we'd all agree he would've made a fantastic spokesman for...well...anything. (Gillette, are you listening?)

John Wall and his ilk will get theirs. Not soon enough for my tastes, but that's small peanuts in the span of their career. Even stars with horrific luck, like Greg Oden, can make 8 figures.

Habitual benchwarmers have little commercial value either way, at least as basketball players. (Except Patrick Davidson ;))

Crippling their non-athletic careers is still frighteningly Big Brother, though. I know firsthand of a case when we could not hire a talented intern for our office because of NCAA regs. Sickening.

Meanwhile, the guys in the middle have it worst of all. Most ACC caliber players like Zoubs, Dockery, Nate-Dogg, etc will never be the face of a national shoe campaign, and aren't likely to draw an NBA paycheck either. But I'll bet they could make ample beer money by playing the sport they love for a casual audience. The best of this crop (think Scheyer, Demarcus, Carrawell) might command salaries on par with what their peers are making in Silicon Valley every summer.

But they couldn't, while I could, simply because my talents lay in an industry that's not regulated by morons. That's not a situation I can brush off complacently.

Richard Berg
07-30-2011, 03:57 AM
My problem with going down the paid college athlete road is what about all of the college athletes that don't get paid because they are not marketable enough or play a sport that the public will not pay for? Where do we draw the line on who gets paid and who does not? Just Basketball and Football? Maybe also LAX - at a lesser level? Soccer - popular over most of the world - for men but not so much for women. What about the swim team or cross country? How do you balance this with the Title 9 issues of equality and balance?

Who are "we" to draw any kind of line? I don't restrict whom you can work for. I hope you'd share the same courtesy with me...and with my more-athletic classmates.

Richard Berg
07-30-2011, 04:39 AM
Right now we're in a war between those who want college athletics to remain an extention of the univerity -- played by real student athletes (who receive an extremely valuable education for their services) and those who want a pro model and don't care whether their performers are students or not (obviously for a Cam Newton or a Marvin Austin, the opportunity to get a degree is not much compensation).
This goes to the heart of the issue. Why do you think market compensation and academics are incompatible? Should graduate students forgo stipends/fellowships/internships and just be happy for the tuition waiver? How do you feel about professors who moonlight as consultants?

I don't dispute that corporate America has priorities that seem skewed to an academic, and vice versa. The two models are different -- at least in their traditional forms. But traditions are never fixed, and in no case do the differences justify "war" rhetoric.

Under the model I support (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/andy_staples/07/26/new.rules/index.html), the influx of "soft money" is structured as a net benefit for universities in their primary mission:

Athletes who profit from their school-borne fame must reimburse some of their scholarship expenses. [sliding scale TBD]
With all the attention & legalese removed from $$ flows and recruiting minutia, academic fraud would become THE major violation. Finally, a job for the NCAA police that's socially useful!
Penalties would primarily take the form of large, amortized fines. Programs found to compromise their educational integrity would effectively bolster the funding for programs who respect both halves of "student-athlete."


There are other proposals in there you may not like. Softening the rules around LOIs, turning players whose coach bails on them into free agents, etc do bring "fairness to individual athletes" vs "traditional team/school-centric sports" into sharper conflict. I find those "fairness" argument convincing, but I can see why longtime fans might cringe.

However, the proposals around $$ don't deserve the same level of criticism. People who root for Duke for the totality of what we represent (not just ball) should find them win/win.