PDA

View Full Version : Bilas on the NCAA's hypocrisy (this is rich!)



diablesseblu
08-06-2013, 10:36 PM
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/college/football/espn_bilas_embarrasses_ncaa_online_I9KgGiEMuSmLfoy 6DfeeCK

;);)

Here is a Turtle
08-07-2013, 01:30 AM
I really hope that the new reforms the BCS conferences are pushing for really address this. It's ridiculous how the NCAA benefits off them, especially on NCAA Football series, but they can't sell an autograph or get tattoos?

Duvall
08-07-2013, 08:19 AM
I really hope that the new reforms the BCS conferences are pushing for really address this. It's ridiculous how the NCAA benefits off them, especially on NCAA Football series, but they can't sell an autograph or get tattoos?

Address it how? Bilasian dudgeon is not a plan.

Wheat/"/"/"
08-07-2013, 08:21 AM
The NCAA should go to Jay and beg him to take a big fat consulting contract to help them restructure the whole system before they become irrelevant.

And they better do it quick before it's too late.

Duvall
08-07-2013, 08:38 AM
The NCAA should go to Jay and beg him to take a big fat consulting contract to help them restructure the whole system before they become irrelevant.

And they better do it quick before it's too late.

Bilas doesn't do consulting, because that would require dealing with solutions and consequences. Whining on Twitter is much easier.

Dev11
08-07-2013, 08:47 AM
Bilas doesn't do consulting, because that would require dealing with solutions and consequences. Whining on Twitter is much easier.

Well most of the time, he is a practicing lawyer, if I recall correctly.

Duvall
08-07-2013, 08:51 AM
Well most of the time, he is a practicing lawyer, if I recall correctly.

Not anymore. He spends almost all of his time now as an ESPN talking head/Tweeting thumb.

And litigators don't do solutions either.

Atlanta Duke
08-07-2013, 08:57 AM
Not anymore. He spends almost all of his time now as an ESPN talking head/Tweeting thumb.

And litigators don't do solutions either.

Consent decrees entered in resolution of lawsuits often impose structural change - the NCAA may not like the proposed solution but the declaration by plaintiff's expert in the O'Bannon litigation certainly proposes a solution to the college athlete licensing issue

Indoor66
08-07-2013, 08:58 AM
It seems to me that those who focus on the "problem" have NO viable solutions. I have not heard one yet. Fairness is such a primary concern today that there is no solution that would not bankrupt the collegiate athletics programs of most, if not all, colleges and universities. I do not see any way that you only reward the stars. If you treat all sports equally then the stars pay for the others. No one pays for a Tee or autograph of a 5 min. per game performer in any sport.

sagegrouse
08-07-2013, 08:58 AM
Not anymore. He spends almost all of his time now as an ESPN talking head/Tweeting thumb.

And litigators don't do solutions either.

I take it from this and other posts that you think Jay Bilas is an overpaid windbag or an empty suit, or both... or worse. I think almost everyone here disagrees with you. Moreover, others have talked about him seriously as a conference commissioner or other top executive job.

Why don't you give it a rest and stop the ad hominem BS?

sagegrouse

Duvall
08-07-2013, 09:05 AM
I take it from this and other posts that you think Jay Bilas is an overpaid windbag or an empty suit, or both... or worse. I think almost everyone here disagrees with you. Moreover, others have talked about him seriously as a conference commissioner or other top executive job.

Why don't you give it a rest and stop the ad hominem BS?

sagegrouse

I have no idea how much Bilas is paid, but I'm sure it's more than fair compared to whatever ESPN pays Digger Phelps. I also don't think Bilas is an empty suit.

I *do* think Bilas is yet another ESPN commentator paid to provide controversial "takes" to stir the passions of the network's viewers. It's a good business model, but not one that seems very useful.

Dev11
08-07-2013, 09:16 AM
I have no idea how much Bilas is paid, but I'm sure it's more than fair compared to whatever ESPN pays Digger Phelps. I also don't think Bilas is an empty suit.

I *do* think Bilas is yet another ESPN commentator paid to provide controversial "takes" to stir the passions of the network's viewers. It's a good business model, but not one that seems very useful.

I wonder how in-depth ESPN writes the 'characters' of their various talking heads. Do some executives sit down with Jay Bilas and explain the things he should be doing on air and on Twitter? Moreover, how much control does ESPN have over their personalities' Twitter accounts? Clearly Bilas has a style that is unique to his colleagues', especially as it appears on Twitter, what with all the rap lyrics and caustic NCAA accusations.

I don't get the impression that somebody is putting him up to his shtick. Unlike somebody like Stephen A Smith, I think Bilas comes by it honestly.

I do think that we have seen solutions passed around. Bilas may not elaborate on them in 140 characters, but he talks on the air about how the players should be able to market themselves. I think the general thought is to allow students to make as much money as they want while they are college athletes, including image licenses from video games and jerseys. The schools provide a scholarship, facilities, and maybe some training on handling the spotlight. If a kid gets too wrapped up in his image and his play suffers, that's his own fault.

Kfanarmy
08-07-2013, 09:27 AM
I take it from this and other posts that you think Jay Bilas is an overpaid windbag or an empty suit, or both... or worse. I think almost everyone here disagrees with you. Moreover, others have talked about him seriously as a conference commissioner or other top executive job.

Why don't you give it a rest and stop the ad hominem BS?

sagegrouse Given that both the pro-Bilas and anti-Bilas comments really only boil down to opinion, I'm not sure why anyone should be asked to stop stating their opinion. I personally like Bilas, though I apparently disagree with him on the issue of paying amateur athletes. Still I find it refreshing to know that others can hold and share a different view. If everyone is of one mind on everything, there really isn't much to talk about.

vick
08-07-2013, 09:41 AM
I *do* think Bilas is yet another ESPN commentator paid to provide controversial "takes" to stir the passions of the network's viewers. It's a good business model, but not one that seems very useful.

The idea that ESPN is paying Bilas to publicly, and repeatedly, attack a business model that's highly profitable for it, strikes me as somewhat implausible.

sagegrouse
08-07-2013, 09:49 AM
I wonder how in-depth ESPN writes the 'characters' of their various talking heads. Do some executives sit down with Jay Bilas and explain the things he should be doing on air and on Twitter? Moreover, how much control does ESPN have over their personalities' Twitter accounts? Clearly Bilas has a style that is unique to his colleagues', especially as it appears on Twitter, what with all the rap lyrics and caustic NCAA accusations.

I don't get the impression that somebody is putting him up to his shtick. Unlike somebody like Stephen A Smith, I think Bilas comes by it honestly.



Bill Paley, the long-time head of CBS, opined that in a long-running sitcom, the characters tended to evolve toward the personalities of the actors. Given that, in a news/sports format, I doubt that the TV producers are "creating characters." I have my own opinion about scripting commentaries on ESPN and elsewhere, but I would like to hear from our Post-a-Matic Jason Evans, who was an executive producer at CNN for years and years.

sage

Duvall
08-07-2013, 09:52 AM
The idea that ESPN is paying Bilas to publicly, and repeatedly, attack a business model that's highly profitable for it, strikes me as somewhat implausible.

Still, it's interesting to compare the frequency of Bilas' attacks on the NCAA, with whom ESPN does not have a contract to show the revenue sports, with the frequency of his attacks on the shady practices of TE conferences and schools with whom they do have such contracts.

OldPhiKap
08-07-2013, 10:22 AM
Still, it's interesting to compare the frequency of Bilas' attacks on the NCAA, with whom ESPN does not have a contract to show the revenue sports, with the frequency of his attacks on the shady practices of TE conferences and schools with whom they do have such contracts.

Doesn't ESPN have some deal on basketball?

I think Bilas is a former player who is speaking as a former player. No more, no less.

wilko
08-07-2013, 10:31 AM
Bilas doesn't do consulting, because that would require dealing with solutions and consequences. Whining on Twitter is much easier.

Now THIS, I would retweet...

Wander
08-07-2013, 10:33 AM
Bilas is a great basketball analyst. He does have the tendency to go into unreasonable-crusader-mode on topics that are a degree of separation away from analyzing actual games - for example, the immense amount of energy he spent whining about VCU's inclusion in the 2011 tournament right before they made a run to the Final Four.

I do think it's unfair to say Bilas hasn't offered a solution. However, I'd say that he's avoided honestly addressing the massive amount of problems reasonable people think his "solution" (basically, universities don't have to pay athletes, but anyone else can pay them whatever they feel like) would generate.

OldPhiKap
08-07-2013, 10:50 AM
Bilas is a great basketball analyst. He does have the tendency to go into unreasonable-crusader-mode on topics that are a degree of separation away from analyzing actual games - for example, the immense amount of energy he spent whining about VCU's inclusion in the 2011 tournament right before they made a run to the Final Four.

I do think it's unfair to say Bilas hasn't offered a solution. However, I'd say that he's avoided honestly addressing the massive amount of problems reasonable people think his "solution" (basically, universities don't have to pay athletes, but anyone else can pay them whatever they feel like) would generate.

I go back to my idea: get rid of the barriers that stop HS players from going to the pro's directly. If you want to play for money, go do so. If you want to develop your skills in college, you play without pay.

I think we can all agree on one thing: the current system is unworkable and will only get worse.

Wander
08-07-2013, 11:36 AM
I go back to my idea: get rid of the barriers that stop HS players from going to the pro's directly. If you want to play for money, go do so. If you want to develop your skills in college, you play without pay.

Sounds good to me.

Dev11
08-07-2013, 11:47 AM
Sounds good to me.

That isn't up to the NCAA, though. That is on the professional leagues to allow young players in, and the current factors lead them to support leaving the players in college for a little while they develop and become brand names before they get drafted.

lotusland
08-07-2013, 11:47 AM
I wonder how in-depth ESPN writes the 'characters' of their various talking heads. Do some executives sit down with Jay Bilas and explain the things he should be doing on air and on Twitter? Moreover, how much control does ESPN have over their personalities' Twitter accounts? Clearly Bilas has a style that is unique to his colleagues', especially as it appears on Twitter, what with all the rap lyrics and caustic NCAA accusations.

I don't get the impression that somebody is putting him up to his shtick. Unlike somebody like Stephen A Smith, I think Bilas comes by it honestly.

I do think that we have seen solutions passed around. Bilas may not elaborate on them in 140 characters, but he talks on the air about how the players should be able to market themselves. I think the general thought is to allow students to make as much money as they want while they are college athletes, including image licenses from video games and jerseys. The schools provide a scholarship, facilities, and maybe some training on handling the spotlight. If a kid gets too wrapped up in his image and his play suffers, that's his own fault.

The reason players can't sell merchandise is the same reason they can't mow lawns for extra money. Some booster or agent would pay jocks $10,000 to edge their sidewalk. They can give up their eligibility and then sell their likeness all they want. Funny how a good HS ball player with no NBA potential's "market at value" would quickly disappear with his eligibility. I'll say it again - players who are good enough to play for money can do so whenever they want to. Anyone who is playing college ball in exchange for a scholarship, high level coaching, facilities and training, is doing so by choice. Plenty of kids who are good enough to play professionally choose to stay another year in college for their own benefit. There is no exploitation. In fact it is a pretty sweet deal.

There is nothing wrong with Bilas being a wise-arse but it is a mistake to say he's offered any solutions. Jay Bilas should run the NCAA like Dennis Miller should be President. Being a smart guy with a quick wit is good for a laugh but that's about all.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
08-07-2013, 11:54 AM
I feel compelled to give my two cents on Bilas (for some reason)...

I very much enjoy his basketball commentary and his Game Day schtick. He's personable, professional, and definitely understands the game.

As far as his beef with the NCAA - I don't agree with everything he says, but I always listen and find it interesting. His experiences as a former D1 player who experienced the biggest stage possible for college athletics gives him boatloads of "street cred" as far as I am concerned. His barbs are sharp, his criticisms are legitimate, and his points are well stated.

For the record, I agree that the NCAA has evolved into a very strange institution. I think it's strange to expect an organization that handles THAT much money to act in the best interest of it's unpaid labor force.

I'm not sure how I feel about the concept of paying players (I've heard very compelling arguments on both sides) but I think that NCAA's handling of basketball and football should probably come to and end. The conception of the NCAA as a non-profit works fine for all non-revenue sports. I would like to see a separate entity take on the management of football and basketball - one that can better address the issue and concerns that permeate these two specific sports and have no relevance in other NCAA athletics. Refusing to acknowledge that there's an inherent difference between the time, money, and attention surround a Texas A&M quarterback playing in front of 100,000 rabid fans and those that surround, say, a Cornell women's volleyball player is just absurd. Put them under different governing bodies - it will be better for everyone.

Go Duke!

Atlanta Duke
08-07-2013, 11:56 AM
I'll say it again - players who are good enough to play for money can do so whenever they want to.

Do you believe Jadeveon Clowney is hanging around Columbia, South Carolina, this fall for any reason other than the fact he is not eligible for the NFL draft until 2014?

“He could’ve come out of high school, probably, and gone straight to the NFL and played,” [Steve] Spurrier said. “He’s just one of those rare guys who has tremendous strength and quickness and explosiveness. And he likes playing. He’s a good guy, he’s really a good teammate also.”

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/01/04/steve-spurrier-clowney-could-have-gone-from-high-school-to-the-nfl/

Same question with regard to whether the number of one and done college basketball players enrolled in college for one year for any reason other than needing to go somewhere for a year prior to being eligible for the NBA draft

cato
08-07-2013, 12:10 PM
It seems to me that those who focus on the "problem" have NO viable solutions. I have not heard one yet. Fairness is such a primary concern today that there is no solution that would not bankrupt the collegiate athletics programs of most, if not all, colleges and universities. I do not see any way that you only reward the stars. If you treat all sports equally then the stars pay for the others. No one pays for a Tee or autograph of a 5 min. per game performer in any sport.

First, you assume that the current system is okay. I am not so sure.

Second, why can't you reward all of the stars? Do teams award equal playing time? Scholarships? No.

cato
08-07-2013, 12:14 PM
I go back to my idea: get rid of the barriers that stop HS players from going to the pro's directly. If you want to play for money, go do so. If you want to develop your skills in college, you play without pay.

I think we can all agree on one thing: the current system is unworkable and will only get worse.

I absolutely agree with your second point.

I'm not sure what anyone can do about the first. Now that NBA and NFL ownership have a system in place that clearly benefits them, why would they change it?

Also, I don't think it is in anyone's interest to steer young kids directly from high school into the NFL or NBA.

cato
08-07-2013, 12:16 PM
I'll say it again - players who are good enough to play for money can do so whenever they want to. Anyone who is playing college ball in exchange for a scholarship, high level coaching, facilities and training, is doing so by choice. Plenty of kids who are good enough to play professionally choose to stay another year in college for their own benefit. There is no exploitation. In fact it is a pretty sweet deal.


Boy, you love this argument. What does it have to do with football? How many basketball players have chosen this "option"?

It is not a real option, and doesn't advance the conversation.

Atlanta Duke
08-07-2013, 12:38 PM
Also, I don't think it is in anyone's interest to steer young kids directly from high school into the NFL or NBA.

There obviously are many more disasters than positive experiences, but going directly to the NBA seems to have worked out OK for Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, and Kevin Garnett.;)

If a player is going pro after one year, I question how going to finishing school in Lexington, Kentucky, for one year is better than going straight to the pros for someone like Nerlens Noel.

I agree that an 18 year old who is not a physical freak like Mr. Clowney is not ready for the NFL

Getting back to the topic that started this thread, it appears Mr. Clowney also signs his name to a lot of memorabilia

Hundreds of Jadeveon Clowney items surface in online searches

Right on cue, the sports blogosphere has done some interesting sleuthing into what's available online with South Carolina star Jadeveon Clowney's John Hancock on it. And the results weren't surprising. Hundreds of Clowney-signed items are out there to be had, and the certification company that authenticated them did so in sequential order.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000227205/article/hundreds-of-jadeveon-clowney-items-surface-in-online-searches

lotusland
08-07-2013, 02:20 PM
Do you believe Jadeveon Clowney is hanging around Columbia, South Carolina, this fall for any reason other than the fact he is not eligible for the NFL draft until 2014?

“He could’ve come out of high school, probably, and gone straight to the NFL and played,” [Steve] Spurrier said. “He’s just one of those rare guys who has tremendous strength and quickness and explosiveness. And he likes playing. He’s a good guy, he’s really a good teammate also.”

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/01/04/steve-spurrier-clowney-could-have-gone-from-high-school-to-the-nfl/

Same question with regard to whether the number of one and done college basketball players enrolled in college for one year for any reason other than needing to go somewhere for a year prior to being eligible for the NBA draft

I said on the Manziel thread that football is a different because you must stay 3 years and there are fewer options outside the NFL. Even so the 3-year rule is not the NCAA's responsibility. You can't say the NCAA should pay them just because the NFL won't take them. The problem is with the NFL. For basketball any player who could play NBA ball out of HS can certainly play in Europe for a year and earn a good living. Like football the vast majority simply aren't good enough to play professionally and, for that matter, most of them never will be good enough.

Everyone who believes college players have great market value should get together and start a league for 17-21year olds and pay them their market value. I think you will find out pretty quick their market value is a pimple on the arse of what the NCAA is raking in.

lotusland
08-07-2013, 02:21 PM
Boy, you love this argument. What does it have to do with football? How many basketball players have chosen this "option"?

It is not a real option, and doesn't advance the conversation.

It's a good argument. What do NFL rules have to do with the NCAA? You should start a league and prove me wrong.

lotusland
08-07-2013, 02:33 PM
I feel compelled to give my two cents on Bilas (for some reason)...

I very much enjoy his basketball commentary and his Game Day schtick. He's personable, professional, and definitely understands the game.

As far as his beef with the NCAA - I don't agree with everything he says, but I always listen and find it interesting. His experiences as a former D1 player who experienced the biggest stage possible for college athletics gives him boatloads of "street cred" as far as I am concerned. His barbs are sharp, his criticisms are legitimate, and his points are well stated.

For the record, I agree that the NCAA has evolved into a very strange institution. I think it's strange to expect an organization that handles THAT much money to act in the best interest of it's unpaid labor force.

I'm not sure how I feel about the concept of paying players (I've heard very compelling arguments on both sides) but I think that NCAA's handling of basketball and football should probably come to and end. The conception of the NCAA as a non-profit works fine for all non-revenue sports. I would like to see a separate entity take on the management of football and basketball - one that can better address the issue and concerns that permeate these two specific sports and have no relevance in other NCAA athletics. Refusing to acknowledge that there's an inherent difference between the time, money, and attention surround a Texas A&M quarterback playing in front of 100,000 rabid fans and those that surround, say, a Cornell women's volleyball player is just absurd. Put them under different governing bodies - it will be better for everyone.

Go Duke!

It won't be better for anyone. It will ruin college sports. The system we have now is imperfect but there is no way to pay players, other than a stipend, that won't be corrupt. If the best players go to the highest bidder it will kill the revenue sports and it should. Even the NFL and NBA have salary caps. If the school with the most generous alumni wins then I don't care who wins.

ChillinDuke
08-07-2013, 02:34 PM
I take it from this and other posts that you think Jay Bilas is an overpaid windbag or an empty suit, or both... or worse. I think almost everyone here disagrees with you. Moreover, others have talked about him seriously as a conference commissioner or other top executive job.

Why don't you give it a rest and stop the ad hominem BS?

sagegrouse

A little harsh here, Sage.

I, for one (with apparently others), take the opposing viewpoint. I don't think Jay is a "windbag" nor a "suit". He is a great basketball analyst, an apparently smart guy, and a witty and amicable personality. I have no problem with him voicing his views in the way that he does.

Where I do fall in this discussion is in the camp that believes Jay has not offered serious ideas to fix the obviously flawed system. At least ideas that have been well troubleshot and considered for scalability across all sports and athletes.

Now, some here have offered attempts at solutions, some of which I agree with more than others. I'm not really sure what is the best attempt at a solution, and it seems pretty clear that no one here has any idea what the best solution is.

Going beyond Jay, I certainly disagree that college is the ONLY option for a high school basketball player to get to the NBA. I mean, clearly these kids can go to Europe or the D-League or even twiddle their thumbs for a year (no requirement to play basketball, I believe; just one year removed from high school). Just because kids don't do it does not mean that college is the ONLY option.

College is the consensus BEST option, as decided by the near unanimous amount of high school basketball players that choose that option. It is the best option BECAUSE of the free education and housing, but more specifically because of the top notch coaching and training, as well as a platform on which to build a brand on a national stage which is largely the same stage that can be leveraged for NBA careers.

The system is obviously flawed. It seems pretty consensus around here on that. But to claim that there aren't other options out there is off base.

Although I try to avoid discussing football for a few reasons (my less avid fandom being one; the 3 year issue being another; being a largely America only sport being a third), the Clowney situation is an obvious one to me. (1) Work out on your own and live at home and prepare for the NFL for three years - all paid for by his own design; or (2) go to college and get it for free and gain other advanced training. To me, it seems most of his income options (signing autographs, for one) disappear without the platform of college. Who would pay for a freak athlete's autograph 3 years pre-NFL with the hope that he becomes a great player? The choice was his. He obviously chose college.

It's not the colleges' problem that these leagues have erected barriers to entry. And it really shouldn't in any way be the colleges' problem.

- Chillin

SoCalDukeFan
08-07-2013, 03:05 PM
Bilas doesn't do consulting, because that would require dealing with solutions and consequences. Whining on Twitter is much easier.

Whatever you think of Jay Bilas, he has pointed up another major hyprocrisy with the NCAA. Why should the NCAA be allowed to profit by selling players jerseys and they can not sell their own autograph.

I am not sure it there is an easy solution that maintains college sports as we know (and love) it. But what is going on now is just wrong.

SoCal

Dev11
08-07-2013, 03:09 PM
It won't be better for anyone. It will ruin college sports. The system we have now is imperfect but there is no way to pay players, other than a stipend, that won't be corrupt. If the best players go to the highest bidder it will kill the revenue sports and it should. Even the NFL and NBA have salary caps. If the school with the most generous alumni wins then I don't care who wins.

I don't think that a more open-market system will present bigger talent gaps than those that already exist. The best players currently go to the best programs, and a single program can only accommodate a certain number of great players. There is no cap on endorsements, which is what the boosters are really paying anyway. Keep the academic requirements, since the programs are still tied to being a student, but just let those students profit from their visibility.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
08-07-2013, 03:30 PM
It won't be better for anyone. It will ruin college sports. The system we have now is imperfect but there is no way to pay players, other than a stipend, that won't be corrupt. If the best players go to the highest bidder it will kill the revenue sports and it should. Even the NFL and NBA have salary caps. If the school with the most generous alumni wins then I don't care who wins.

What I suggested would be "better for everyone" was not paying players, but having a separate entity govern the "revenue" sports and to stop having one non-profit mockery organization in charge of all college sports. The issues are different for revenue and non-revenue generating sports, and putting them under one umbrella doesn't benefit anyone. The revenue sports can continue to subsidize the others, but have them ruled by a different body.

In fact, I specifically said that I was unsure about paying players and I have heard good arguments on both sides. It's definitely a dangerous game.

My two cents.

chaosmage
08-07-2013, 04:12 PM
and actually gotten into a twitter debate with Bilas on it. He's so anti-NCAA that any solution other than directly paying players does not appeal to him, but here's my idea.

First, remove the age limit from pro basketball and insert the 3-years in college rule. If a kid is serious about basketball after college, he can graduate in three years. Jason and Carlos did it at Duke. Allow a kid who tries to get drafted from HS to sign a letter to a particular school, with the understanding that he is attempting to go pro, and can be recruited over. There are other rules to be defined here, but that's the general idea. Take all the profits from a school's particular revenue sport (basketball in this case) and designate a small percentage to be set in an interest-bearing account. This is to include ticket sales to home games, sales of jerseys (which can now have the likeness on them), and regulated autograph appearances. ANYTHING that the school/NCAA makes a profit from, 10% or so goes to this account.

When the student graduates, he receives his equal portion of that profit as a check. If he gets kicked off the team, put out of school, low grades, etc... he loses it. Same as the rest of us.

The problem I keep running into with this idea is how to regulate it. NCAA doesn't do anything as it is, but it's the closest solution to solving the "student/athlete" contradiction so prevalent these days. Should the students be paid? No, not directly. They should be eligible for work-study jobs the same as the rest of us are/were, but that's it. Way I understand it and saw the athletes at my D2 school, they barely had time to do much besides school and work anyway. My freshman mentor was the top player on our squad, and he was ALWAYS busy.

But should the students be allowed to profit if there is a demand for their autograph/jersey? Heck yes. I have a Mason P. jersey that I wish had his name on it, and it should have. It was always a hypocrisy to me to see "NCAA Basketball" from EA or whomever, with a guy that looked, sounded, and played like Redick, with his number on it... but not his name.

The only thing about the O'Bannon lawsuit that bothers me is that he's just now coming up with it. I don't buy that he didn't know till "recently" and I wonder if his finances are tight and he's trying to squeeze the NCAA a bit. Are the other names of the players in the suit available? And how many of them were successful and had a salary in the NBA/NFL and are doing well? Or is this all players who didn't handle their money well and now have to work a regular job like the rest of us?

Call me a little cynical. Sorry for the long-windedness.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
08-07-2013, 04:28 PM
First, remove the age limit from pro basketball and insert the 3-years in college rule.

... (cut some very interesting ideas...)

The problem I keep running into with this idea is how to regulate it.

The other problem is that the NCAA has nothing do to with the age limit for pro basketball, and the NBA has zero impetus to eliminate what is effectively a free developmental league where players gain skills and marketability before ever setting foot in the league. The NCAA has no leverage whatsoever, which is how we end up with these straight "straight to NBA," "one-and-done," or "two-and-done" rules. It's not about the players, the colleges, or the programs - it's about the NBA not wanting to spend money on contracts for players who have a high failure rate in the league.

subzero02
08-07-2013, 04:52 PM
The only thing about the O'Bannon lawsuit that bothers me is that he's just now coming up with it. I don't buy that he didn't know till "recently" and I wonder if his finances are tight and he's trying to squeeze the NCAA a bit. Are the other names of the players in the suit available? And how many of them were successful and had a salary in the NBA/NFL and are doing well? Or is this all players who didn't handle their money well and now have to work a regular job like the rest of us?

Call me a little cynical. Sorry for the long-windedness.

I really don't care why or when Ed O'bannon decided he had been exploited by the NCAA but I do know the lawsuit includes 6 current NCAA football players


Arizona linebacker Jake Fischer, Arizona place kicker Jake Smith and Clemson defensive back Darius Robinson joined a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Califiornia against video game manufacturer Electronic Arts and the nation's leading collegiate trademark licensing and marketing firm, Collegiate Licensing Co.

Also added to the case are Vanderbilt senior linebacker Chase Garnham, Minnesota senior tight end Moses Alipate and Minnesota senior wide receiver Victor Keise.

http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/2564375

chaosmage
08-07-2013, 04:55 PM
The other problem is that the NCAA has nothing do to with the age limit for pro basketball, and the NBA has zero impetus to eliminate what is effectively a free developmental league where players gain skills and marketability before ever setting foot in the league. The NCAA has no leverage whatsoever, which is how we end up with these straight "straight to NBA," "one-and-done," or "two-and-done" rules. It's not about the players, the colleges, or the programs - it's about the NBA not wanting to spend money on contracts for players who have a high failure rate in the league.

My reply to that would be how many of the "one and dones" have TRULY been successful. I'd wager less than 30%, just based off what I can think of in my head. Thoughts?

Secondly, here's how the NCAA stops it. "We're setting a rule where if you go to college, you have to stay three years. If you leave early, you repay your scholarship and forfeit all dollars made from you and your COLLEGE gear, not pro." So Duke can sell Irving jerseys, etc.,

This may not be the best stopgap, and I'm open to discussing changes in it, but hitting the players in the pocketbook makes them think. A lot of them shut up if they have to look paying back 17K or so in scholarship money if they don't make it. And hey, they'll understand how the rest of the world lives having to pay back loans.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
08-07-2013, 05:05 PM
My reply to that would be how many of the "one and dones" have TRULY been successful. I'd wager less than 30%, just based off what I can think of in my head. Thoughts?

Secondly, here's how the NCAA stops it. "We're setting a rule where if you go to college, you have to stay three years. If you leave early, you repay your scholarship and forfeit all dollars made from you and your COLLEGE gear, not pro." So Duke can sell Irving jerseys, etc.,

This may not be the best stopgap, and I'm open to discussing changes in it, but hitting the players in the pocketbook makes them think. A lot of them shut up if they have to look paying back 17K or so in scholarship money if they don't make it. And hey, they'll understand how the rest of the world lives having to pay back loans.

My point is (the same as yours) that the NBA wants players to stay longer in college and that they are the impetus for the one year, now two year requirements. Because yes, the failure rate with less college play is very high. In this case, it happens to be in the best interest of NCAA players, but don't fool yourself, it's an NBA rule intended to protect NBA franchises, not an altruistic lob towards the NCAA.

However, with a minimum salary of $490,000 at the rookie level and first round picks starting at $880,000, I seriously doubt that repaying two years of college tuition would be seen as a detriment to going pro before your third year in college.

To be fair, I don't have any better solution, but I think that the NCAA as it stands is a hypocritical, toothless organization that was never intended to manage a 9, 10, or 11 figure industry.

Atlanta Duke
08-07-2013, 05:19 PM
The only thing about the O'Bannon lawsuit that bothers me is that he's just now coming up with it. I don't buy that he didn't know till "recently" and I wonder if his finances are tight and he's trying to squeeze the NCAA a bit. Are the other names of the players in the suit available? And how many of them were successful and had a salary in the NBA/NFL and are doing well? Or is this all players who didn't handle their money well and now have to work a regular job like the rest of us?

Plaintiffs are seeking class certification for both current and former NCAA players

Current football players added to the lawsuit several weeks ago are:

Arizona linebacker Jake Fischer, Arizona place kicker Jake Smith ... Clemson defensive back Darius Robinson ... Vanderbilt senior linebacker Chase Garnham, Minnesota senior tight end Moses Alipate and Minnesota senior wide receiver Victor Keise.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/22818559/six-current-players-join-obannon-suit-against-ncaa

Former players named as plaintiffs include:

As the lawsuit gained recognition, former star players like Oscar Robertson and Bill Russell joined O’Bannon at the forefront....

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/sports/lawsuit-named-for-obannon-has-other-critical-participants.html?pagewanted=all

RoyalBlue08
08-07-2013, 08:27 PM
I find it very surprising the number of people on this message board that seem to think that the NCAA going to an Olympic model of athletes being able to market themselves and earn money would lead to some sort of destruction of college athletics. Many of you blast Bilas for not addressing your concerns, but I'm not sure what they are exactly. Are you worried that the top players in high school would all go to the same schools. Doesn't this happen already? Have we seen Kentucky's current recruiting class. How about all the great classes Duke has recruited over the years. Sure, the schools might shift based on town/alumni bases that are willing to pay more. Or are you worried that some players will have a lot more money than others? Well, welcome to the USA. Income disparity is something I think we are live with. Right now the disparity in wealthy between students at Duke is already pretty severe, and life goes on. I think there are very few areas in life where we think it is unfair that the more talented or valuable are able to profit.

I guess I reject this idea that it is clearly the death of college sports to lift the restrictions on the players earning money from outside sources. I wonder how many that are against it are just worried that the power structure in basketball will shift away from a small school like Duke and towards more big public schools with large fan bases that would make the players more marketable. Personally, I live and die (for reasons I can't completely explain) with every Duke basketball game, but at the same time I would never come out on the side of only coaches, ADs, commissioners, and NCAA employees getting rich off the talents of our players. If it means a competitive edge to other schools to make the system less exploitive, I think it is a small price to pay. I am really proud that Bilas is a fellow alum and I am glad he chose this issue to champion.

Atlanta Duke
08-07-2013, 08:50 PM
This N&O interview with Jay Bilas is listed on the DBR home page but for whatever reason the link is not functioning from there - another Internet mystery

Do I think that the O’Bannon plaintiffs are right? I tend to believe they are, yeah.

But the courts over the years have given great deference to the NCAA because of this idea that it’s an educational pursuit and sports are an integral part of education. I don’t agree with that, either, but courts have deferred to that. I’m not sure how much longer, given the commercial model as the money is continuing to rise, the courts are going to continue to buy that. You don’t know.

So, who knows who is going to win. I don’t know who is going to win. All I know is the tension between the amateurism model and the commercialized model, the NCAA likes to imply that they’re two separate things, but it’s the same game. It’s the same business. But the tension is going to continue to grow. As the money grows and the players stay at zero, the tension is going to grow.

http://blogs.newsobserver.com/accnow/a-qa-with-jay-bilas-on-the-obannon-case-and-the-ncaa

Interesting read

dukelifer
08-07-2013, 08:51 PM
What I suggested would be "better for everyone" was not paying players, but having a separate entity govern the "revenue" sports and to stop having one non-profit mockery organization in charge of all college sports. The issues are different for revenue and non-revenue generating sports, and putting them under one umbrella doesn't benefit anyone. The revenue sports can continue to subsidize the others, but have them ruled by a different body.

In fact, I specifically said that I was unsure about paying players and I have heard good arguments on both sides. It's definitely a dangerous game.

My two cents.
Most athletic programs run at a deficit which means that the University is also subsidizing. There is no easy answer. The NCAA has evolved because coaches, players and boosters continue not to abide by the rules- forcing new rules. You have to rely on people behaving ethically and following the rules- however onerous. But that will not happen in sports- or maybe anywhere else where there is big money to be made. I am sure this has always gone on but the conversation about the unethical nature is getting to be too much. I was a much happier sports fan when I knew less about the details of the underbelly- and just watched the game. Now I know that the some of the baseball players I used to watch as a kid were probably taking speed to keep alert and the baseball players my kids are watching are probably taking PEDs. I liked sports more when I did not know what the basketball coach made- particularly when it is many millions of dollars. With twitter and 24/7 sports coverage it is only getting worse. Maybe we should just go back to the old days when there were no rules (or just a few) and players got whatever benefit the market gave them and no one paid attention or reported on it. What is the worse that can happen? A few schools will dominate football and basketball championships? Wait, isn't that already happening?

Sports is entertainment. A large fraction of the kids playing big time college sports are NOT going pro and the college experience probably benefits a good fraction of those. If we just let it be entertainment and stop trying to hope that people in it are going to play by the rules- we will be happier fans. If some fan will pay cash for Johnny Football's autograph- more power to him. He is a year or so away from making millions anyway. The market is only going to benefit a few college athletes- always has and always will.

arnie
08-07-2013, 08:51 PM
I find it very surprising the number of people on this message board that seem to think that the NCAA going to an Olympic model of athletes being able to market themselves and earn money would lead to some sort of destruction of college athletics. Many of you blast Bilas for not addressing your concerns, but I'm not sure what they are exactly. Are you worried that the top players in high school would all go to the same schools. Doesn't this happen already? Have we seen Kentucky's current recruiting class. How about all the great classes Duke has recruited over the years. Sure, the schools might shift based on town/alumni bases that are willing to pay more. Or are you worried that some players will have a lot more money than others? Well, welcome to the USA. Income disparity is something I think we are live with. Right now the disparity in wealthy between students at Duke is already pretty severe, and life goes on. I think there are very few areas in life where we think it is unfair that the more talented or valuable are able to profit.

I guess I reject this idea that it is clearly the death of college sports to lift the restrictions on the players earning money from outside sources. I wonder how many that are against it are just worried that the power structure in basketball will shift away from a small school like Duke and towards more big public schools with large fan bases that would make the players more marketable. Personally, I live and die (for reasons I can't completely explain) with every Duke basketball game, but at the same time I would never come out on the side of only coaches, ADs, commissioners, and NCAA employees getting rich off the talents of our players. If it means a competitive edge to other schools to make the system less exploitive, I think it is a small price to pay. I am really proud that Bilas is a fellow alum and I am glad he chose this issue to champion.
You really think Auburn, UNC and similar schools will be less exploitive of athletes by simply paying them? These schools aren't providing meaningful education to most players as it is; if they start paying them "what they're worth" then I believe the student part of the equation is over. At that point, I have no interest in college athletics and likely many other Duke alums would feel the same. I find Bilas to be pompous and not a problem solver - just because he's a Dukie doesn't mean I have to agree with him.

Nugget
08-07-2013, 08:57 PM
I'm not sure how I feel about the concept of paying players (I've heard very compelling arguments on both sides) but I think that NCAA's handling of basketball and football should probably come to and end. The conception of the NCAA as a non-profit works fine for all non-revenue sports. I would like to see a separate entity take on the management of football and basketball - one that can better address the issue and concerns that permeate these two specific sports and have no relevance in other NCAA athletics. Refusing to acknowledge that there's an inherent difference between the time, money, and attention surround a Texas A&M quarterback playing in front of 100,000 rabid fans and those that surround, say, a Cornell women's volleyball player is just absurd. Put them under different governing bodies - it will be better for everyone.

Go Duke!

This is an interesting idea, but I think one major factor your proposal does not account for is the role of Title IX. I strongly suspect that setting up divisions that involved treating the revenue sports differently from the non-revenue sports would be quickly smacked down by federal lawsuits on gender discrimination grounds.

The impact of Title IX and the place of the non-revenue sports is, I think, also something that people often fail to address in making arguments about how it is so unfair for "the schools" and "the NCAA" to be "making money off of" players who could otherwise earn substantial $ through control of their own marketing rights. Something like 75-80% of athletic departments lose money, so it isn't like the schools are getting rich off of sports (certainly, they are indirectly to some degree via enhanced alumni donations and increased applications when a team does well, but I'm talking about direct profit/loss). And, of course, the high end coaches and several hundred/thousand administrators within the major school athletic departments and the upper echelon of the NCAA that earn high salaries out of this.

But, other than that, the people who are really benefitted by the restrictions on paying football and basketball stars are the scholarship athletes in non-revenue sports. Paying football and basketball players would place at great risk the ability of men (because Title IX protects nearly all women's programs at schools that put 85 scholarships into football) to get scholarships in the non-revenue sports. I think you would see lots of schools drop scholarships for men's track and field, swimming & diving, wrestling, baseball, soccer, golf, tennis, etc.

The final elephant in the room to me is that a substantial part of the value proposition of collegiate sports is that there is supposed to be some connection between the players and the school. We're all hypocrites to a degree in seeing high major athletics as related to the university (albeit to a lesser degree at a place like Duke or Stanford or Notre Dame or BC or Georgia Tech), but the illusion (willful delusion?) that the players are amatuers is essential to the value of college sports. If this becomes just officially the minor leagues, why bother watching? Or caring?

RoyalBlue08
08-07-2013, 09:03 PM
You really think Auburn, UNC and similar schools will be less exploitive of athletes by simply paying them? These schools aren't providing meaningful education to most players as it is; if they start paying them "what they're worth" then I believe the student part of the equation is over. At that point, I have no interest in college athletics and likely many other Duke alums would feel the same. I find Bilas to be pompous and not a problem solver - just because he's a Dukie doesn't mean I have to agree with him.

So you are assuming there is a correlation between the wealth of a student and whether or not they take their academics seriously? This seems to be a big assumption. I agree I'm much less interested in games if they players are not actually students. I have no idea why making some money on the side would cause them to be less likely to go to class. (I have plenty of rich friends who had no problem attending classes and getting degrees.) And the number of players talented enough to make more than a little walking around money is small anyway.

And just to be clear, I never advocated schools paying their players. I would only hope the NCAA would get rid of the rules against students earning money on their own.

And lastly, as a college educator myself, I take offense to the idea that schools are not providing meaningful education to their players. I would argue that the vast majority of even players in revenue sports attend class, take it seriously, and earn degrees. Could some schools do better at this, sure. But the fact that some percentage of students don't take advantage of the opportunity to receive an education seems to be a poor justification for the exploitation that Bilas is highlighting.

semper phi 78
08-07-2013, 09:25 PM
You really think Auburn, UNC and similar schools will be less exploitive of athletes by simply paying them? These schools aren't providing meaningful education to most players as it is; if they start paying them "what they're worth" then I believe the student part of the equation is over. At that point, I have no interest in college athletics and likely many other Duke alums would feel the same. I find Bilas to be pompous and not a problem solver - just because he's a Dukie doesn't mean I have to agree with him.

After reading so much about UNC's academic scandal, I really have trouble with any worries about money...eventually it will sort itself out. UNC is not alone in having "student" athletes who do not know what a paragraph is, yet still it appears that all the NCAA worries about is money. Once the money issue is finally "corrected", will anyone care if these players are taking bona fide classes and producing valid class work? I am not complaining about a handful of crip courses, I am talking about a system that seems indifferent to profiting from the efforts of players who cannot pass a GED exam (do GED exams exist?).

Until I see more NCAA effort to protect academic integrity, D-1 revenue sports' fate is to become a gloried farm system. At that point, why not just watch the best play in the NFL/NBA?

arnie
08-07-2013, 09:29 PM
So you are assuming there is a correlation between the wealth of a student and whether or not they take their academics seriously? This seems to be a big assumption. I agree I'm much less interested in games if they players are not actually students. I have no idea why making some money on the side would cause them to be less likely to go to class. (I have plenty of rich friends who had no problem attending classes and getting degrees.) And the number of players talented enough to make more than a little walking around money is small anyway.

And just to be clear, I never advocated schools paying their players. I would only hope the NCAA would get rid of the rules against students earning money on their own.

And lastly, as a college educator myself, I take offense to the idea that schools are not providing meaningful education to their players. I would argue that the vast majority of even players in revenue sports attend class, take it seriously, and earn degrees. Could some schools do better at this, sure. But the fact that some percentage of students don't take advantage of the opportunity to receive an education seems to be a poor justification for the exploitation that Bilas is highlighting.
My post had nothing to do with student wealth and taking education seriously. My concern is that the schools themselves will place less emphasis on education if they pay the athletes. I'm sorry that I offended you in alleging that UNC, Auburn, etc. aren't providing meaningful education to many athletes in revenue sports.

lotusland
08-07-2013, 09:55 PM
Most athletic programs run at a deficit which means that the University is also subsidizing. There is no easy answer. The NCAA has evolved because coaches, players and boosters continue not to abide by the rules- forcing new rules. You have to rely on people behaving ethically and following the rules- however onerous. But that will not happen in sports- or maybe anywhere else where there is big money to be made. I am sure this has always gone on but the conversation about the unethical nature is getting to be too much. I was a much happier sports fan when I knew less about the details of the underbelly- and just watched the game. Now I know that the some of the baseball players I used to watch as a kid were probably taking speed to keep alert and the baseball players my kids are watching are probably taking PEDs. I liked sports more when I did not know what the basketball coach made- particularly when it is many millions of dollars. With twitter and 24/7 sports coverage it is only getting worse. Maybe we should just go back to the old days when there were no rules (or just a few) and players got whatever benefit the market gave them and no one paid attention or reported on it. What is the worse that can happen? A few schools will dominate football and basketball championships? Wait, isn't that already happening?

Sports is entertainment. A large fraction of the kids playing big time college sports are NOT going pro and the college experience probably benefits a good fraction of those. If we just let it be entertainment and stop trying to hope that people in it are going to play by the rules- we will be happier fans. If some fan will pay cash for Johnny Football's autograph- more power to him. He is a year or so away from making millions anyway. The market is only going to benefit a few college athletes- always has and always will.

Maybe I'm the only one but I got sick of pro athletes and quit watching NFL and NBA entirely about 10 years ago and haven't missed them at all. I can promise you I won't follow 18-year old spoiled brats running the show like NBA players do especially when they are not even good enough to play professionally anywhere else. I think paying the athletes might actually cause some colleges and universities to question whether revenue sports really fit their mission. I mean we already have coaches earning more way more than faculty and administrators. Having 18-year old players earning more is bound to prompt some folks to question what they are actually doing in that business and how that is even remotely related to higher education. I know a lot of people think amateurism and the concept of student athletes is a farce already and maybe it is. But if you eliminate that premise I think it will force some institutions to rethink their commitment to those revenue sports. And that may be a good thing but it won't be good for those poor exploited athletes we are so concerned about because there might not be as many scholarships available and, if the money goes away significantly, I can promise you there won't a less "exploitive" option available for the majority of athletes who will never play a minute of professional ball. I know there has been some chest thumping by the major conferences lately about not wanting be constrained by the same rules as smaller schools recently but my hope is that enough conferences and schools will see the big picture well enough to stand behind the NCAA and amateurism. But If they all bolt to chase the money I'm sure I can adopt a new mid-major team to follow.

lotusland
08-07-2013, 10:00 PM
This is an interesting idea, but I think one major factor your proposal does not account for is the role of Title IX. I strongly suspect that setting up divisions that involved treating the revenue sports differently from the non-revenue sports would be quickly smacked down by federal lawsuits on gender discrimination grounds.

The impact of Title IX and the place of the non-revenue sports is, I think, also something that people often fail to address in making arguments about how it is so unfair for "the schools" and "the NCAA" to be "making money off of" players who could otherwise earn substantial $ through control of their own marketing rights. Something like 75-80% of athletic departments lose money, so it isn't like the schools are getting rich off of sports (certainly, they are indirectly to some degree via enhanced alumni donations and increased applications when a team does well, but I'm talking about direct profit/loss). And, of course, the high end coaches and several hundred/thousand administrators within the major school athletic departments and the upper echelon of the NCAA that earn high salaries out of this.

But, other than that, the people who are really benefitted by the restrictions on paying football and basketball stars are the scholarship athletes in non-revenue sports. Paying football and basketball players would place at great risk the ability of men (because Title IX protects nearly all women's programs at schools that put 85 scholarships into football) to get scholarships in the non-revenue sports. I think you would see lots of schools drop scholarships for men's track and field, swimming & diving, wrestling, baseball, soccer, golf, tennis, etc.

The final elephant in the room to me is that a substantial part of the value proposition of collegiate sports is that there is supposed to be some connection between the players and the school. We're all hypocrites to a degree in seeing high major athletics as related to the university (albeit to a lesser degree at a place like Duke or Stanford or Notre Dame or BC or Georgia Tech), but the illusion (willful delusion?) that the players are amatuers is essential to the value of college sports. If this becomes just officially the minor leagues, why bother watching? Or caring? Wow you said it much better than I!

semper phi 78
08-07-2013, 10:08 PM
Maybe I'm the only one but I got sick of pro athletes and quit watching NFL and NBA entirely about 10 years ago and haven't missed them at all. I can promise you I won't follow 18-year old spoiled brats running the show like NBA players do especially when they are not even good enough to play professionally anywhere else. I think paying the athletes might actually cause some colleges and universities to question whether revenue sports really fit their mission. I mean we already have coaches earning more way more than faculty and administrators. Having 18-year old players earning more is bound to prompt some folks to question what they are actually doing in that business and how that is even remotely related to higher education. I know a lot of people think amateurism and the concept of student athletes is a farce already and maybe it is. But if you eliminate that premise I think it will force some institutions to rethink their commitment to those revenue sports. And that may be a good thing but it won't be good for those poor exploited athletes we are so concerned about because there might not be as many scholarships available and, if the money goes away significantly, I can promise you there won't a less "exploitive" option available for the majority of athletes who will never play a minute of professional ball. I know there has been some chest thumping by the major conferences lately about not wanting be constrained by the same rules as smaller schools recently but my hope is that enough conferences and schools will see the big picture well enough to stand behind the NCAA and amateurism. But If they all bolt to chase the money I'm sure I can adopt a new mid-major team to follow.

The point of COLLEGE ATHLETICS is that college STUDENTS play the games. It's something else, but it's not COLLEGE sports if it's not played by bona fide students...no matter what they are paid.

ForkFondler
08-07-2013, 10:20 PM
The point of COLLEGE ATHLETICS is that college STUDENTS play the games. It's something else, but it's not COLLEGE sports if it's not played by bona fide students...no matter what they are paid.

Soooo, they can still be students even if they are paid, n'est pas?

semper phi 78
08-07-2013, 10:49 PM
Soooo, they can still be students even if they are paid, n'est pas?

It's already happening at West Point, Annapolis, and Colorado Springs. Amateurism died in the Olympics many years ago. We have a very dysfunctional version of amateurism in the NCAA. Just rename this mess the NAA and at least we'll have some semblance of integrity.

dyedwab
08-07-2013, 11:36 PM
Whatever you think of Jay Bilas, he has pointed up another major hyprocrisy with the NCAA. Why should the NCAA be allowed to profit by selling players jerseys and they can not sell their own autograph.

I am not sure it there is an easy solution that maintains college sports as we know (and love) it. But what is going on now is just wrong.

SoCal

It's actually more than that. The NCAA has taken a position in a court case that the jerseys it sells with numbers on them are not being marketed because of the players who wear them. They are the property of the school, etc., and marketed separate from the players. Now, this may be an absurd legal fiction that barely passes the smell test, but Bilas' searches, and the subsequent removal of the search function from the website fundamentally undermines even that position.

The other thing to note is that at some point in the 90's this was a change in position for the NCAA. In the late 80's/early 90's (or say, the era coinciding with Duke's first two national championships and 7 Final Fours in 9 years), you couldn't walk into Duke Stores and buy a replica basketball jersey with Johnny Dawkins/Danny Ferry/Grant Hill/Christian Laettner's number on them. At the end of the season, Duke Stores would sometimes make a T-shirt commemorating the star seniors (I still have a couple) but that was always after the season. The point is that at some point the NCAA agreed with the idea that selling jersey's with a players number on them was marketing the player, so they wouldn't allow it.

Agree or disagree with Bilas' argument re: compensating players, in this instance, his argument more pointed. Its that the NCAA has made a particular argument whether is uses players to market jerseys,etc. that its own online store utterly refutes.

gep
08-08-2013, 12:36 AM
I've followed these discussions on "paying" athletes in revenue sports. I don't think any kind of payment to athletes in revenue programs by the school is right at all. This is one item that I don't agree with Jay. As others have said, he hasn't really offered a method to do this. But one discussion got me thinking...

An athlete in *any* sport should be able to *market himself*. Take Michelle Wie... she signed a Sony endorsement, went to Stanford, but couldn't be on the golf team. So she plays in the LPGA. Maybe that was her goal, but I thought I read that she would have liked to be on the Stanford golf team. Well... with this model of allowing players to market themselves (absolutely no payment from the school, other than the scholarship, if at all). If Michelle so desired, she could have had that Sony endorsement and played on the Stanford golf team for a year or two. If I recall correctly, Sony gave her the endorsement before she graduated from high school, and before even declaring that she was going to college or join the LPGA. So Kyrie Irving gets a shoe endorsement just before entering Duke... but really wants to play for Coach K for at least a year. Why prevent him from getting the shoe endorsement? Doesn't cost Duke or the NCAA a penny. However, I do think that once a player competes on a "pro" level (like the LPGA or NBA), then he/she loses eligibility in college athletics. My reason is that skills, etc are enhanced playing against higher level players ("pros").

And, the argument that boosters, etc will pay an athlete $10K to mow his lawn... well, how many of these will be at a single school. As others have said, the top players gravitate to the top schools already... and there are only a few positions available. So not every top player will go to only the top schools where boosters, etc will pay for menial jobs, autographs, jerseys, etc.

I think I finally landed on the position that an athlete... revenue or non-revenue... should be able to market himself/herself. As Michelle Wie has shown, it doesn't have to be in a revenue sport. Maybe tennis, lacrosse, even diving. After all, the Olympics now has this model. BUT, I really oppose the notion of "advertsing" the endorsement while playing the sport in college. Maybe advertising outside of the sport is OK??? like TV ads, etc. I know, probably disjointed ideas...

Finally, I never really understood why I couldn't buy a Battier jersey while he was still playing at Duke. What's the problem there, especially if Shane doesn't get a penny of sales. But with this "marketing" model, Shane would at least get some "pennies".

Oh well...

tommy
08-08-2013, 01:01 AM
The other problem is that the NCAA has nothing do to with the age limit for pro basketball, and the NBA has zero impetus to eliminate what is effectively a free developmental league where players gain skills and marketability before ever setting foot in the league. The NCAA has no leverage whatsoever . . .

Yes it does. The NCAA just hasn't used the leverage it has. For a long time I have advocated the NCAA changing its rules to allow guys who declare for the draft to come back to school any time before they actually sign a pro contract. They don't get drafted, they don't like where they got drafted, they don't like the contract they got offered? Fine, forget it. I'm going back to school. Try me again next year, NBA.

The NBA would hate that in a big way, as teams would have to draft guys not knowing if they're going to be able to sign them. Could mean a lot of wasted draft picks, which can be franchise killers. The NCAA's response to that complaint should be: "Too bad. Pound sand. You NBA guys have made rules in your best interest without regard to the interests of the NCAA and its universities and its programs and (in our opinion) its players. Fine. Now we're going to make our rules and align them with our best interests, not yours. You want us to change this new rule back? Fine, make kids either eligible for the draft right out of high school or else not until they've played at least two years of college. Then we'd be happy to change our rule back."


Secondly, here's how the NCAA stops it. "We're setting a rule where if you go to college, you have to stay three years. If you leave early, you repay your scholarship and forfeit all dollars made from you and your COLLEGE gear, not pro." So Duke can sell Irving jerseys, etc.,

How are you going to enforce that? A guy goes to college and leaves after a year. Are the universities going to go into the business of suing their former players -- the ones who supposedly made the universities all this money -- in order to recover the relative chump change of the cost of a college scholarship? Not if they're concerned in the least about PR they won't.

As for the forfeiting of dollars made from college gear, I'm not sure how that would even be calculated with any degree of precision, and again, the schools would have to start suing the players in order to recover it. Not going to happen, so it'd be no deterrent to their leaving.

Kids are going to want to leave after a year. Heck, some want to go right out of high school. You can't squelch that desire. What you can do is make it against the rules, if that's what the NBA decides to do. But that gets back to my first point -- in order for the NBA to enact those rules, they're going to have to be backed into a corner, or at the very least persuaded as to why it's in their best interest to enact them.


There obviously are many more disasters than positive experiences, but going directly to the NBA seems to have worked out OK for Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, and Kevin Garnett.;)

Are there though? IIRC, I compiled a list of all the guys who declared straight out of high school and looked at their careers, and posted it somewhere on these boards. At least I think I did. While sure there were some delusional kids who had no rational basis for declaring right out of high school but did so anyway and blew any real chance of ever making big dollars playing basketball, there were also quite a few -- many, really -- who have carved out very nice, lengthy NBA careers, even if not All-Star careers, and set themselves and their families up financially for life.

subzero02
08-08-2013, 01:54 AM
It's actually more than that. The NCAA has taken a position in a court case that the jerseys it sells with numbers on them are not being marketed because of the players who wear them. They are the property of the school, etc., and marketed separate from the players. Now, this may be an absurd legal fiction that barely passes the smell test, but Bilas' searches, and the subsequent removal of the search function from the website fundamentally undermines even that position.

The other thing to note is that at some point in the 90's this was a change in position for the NCAA. In the late 80's/early 90's (or say, the era coinciding with Duke's first two national championships and 7 Final Fours in 9 years), you couldn't walk into Duke Stores and buy a replica basketball jersey with Johnny Dawkins/Danny Ferry/Grant Hill/Christian Laettner's number on them. At the end of the season, Duke Stores would sometimes make a T-shirt commemorating the star seniors (I still have a couple) but that was always after the season. The point is that at some point the NCAA agreed with the idea that selling jersey's with a players number on them was marketing the player, so they wouldn't allow it.

Agree or disagree with Bilas' argument re: compensating players, in this instance, his argument more pointed. Its that the NCAA has made a particular argument whether is uses players to market jerseys,etc. that its own online store utterly refutes.

That's a bingo!!!

nocilla
08-08-2013, 10:12 AM
Yes it does. The NCAA just hasn't used the leverage it has. For a long time I have advocated the NCAA changing its rules to allow guys who declare for the draft to come back to school any time before they actually sign a pro contract. They don't get drafted, they don't like where they got drafted, they don't like the contract they got offered? Fine, forget it. I'm going back to school. Try me again next year, NBA.

The NBA would hate that in a big way, as teams would have to draft guys not knowing if they're going to be able to sign them. Could mean a lot of wasted draft picks, which can be franchise killers. The NCAA's response to that complaint should be: "Too bad. Pound sand. You NBA guys have made rules in your best interest without regard to the interests of the NCAA and its universities and its programs and (in our opinion) its players. Fine. Now we're going to make our rules and align them with our best interests, not yours. You want us to change this new rule back? Fine, make kids either eligible for the draft right out of high school or else not until they've played at least two years of college. Then we'd be happy to change our rule back."


How many guys would actually turn down even a league minimum paycheck? What is the rookie scale for first round draft picks? If they get drafted, then I'm pretty sure they aren't going back to school. Maybe guys taken in the 2nd round, but I doubt it would be a franchise killer for a 2nd round pick to decide to go back to school. And don't we already see this anyway with the international players? A lot of these guys get drafted and then decide to stay overseas. The only kids that would really benefit are the ones that don't get drafted. I don't think this gives the NCAA much leverage at all and actually causes problems because colleges won't know who is on their team and who is not.

Dev11
08-08-2013, 10:16 AM
How many guys would actually turn down even a league minimum paycheck? What is the rookie scale for first round draft picks? If they get drafted, then I'm pretty sure they aren't going back to school. Maybe guys taken in the 2nd round, but I doubt it would be a franchise killer for a 2nd round pick to decide to go back to school. And don't we already see this anyway with the international players? A lot of these guys get drafted and then decide to stay overseas. The only kids that would really benefit are the ones that don't get drafted. I don't think this gives the NCAA much leverage at all and actually causes problems because colleges won't know who is on their team and who is not.

They make 6 figures and don't have to do math homework after they're 18. Sign me up.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
08-08-2013, 10:36 AM
Yes it does. The NCAA just hasn't used the leverage it has. For a long time I have advocated the NCAA changing its rules to allow guys who declare for the draft to come back to school any time before they actually sign a pro contract. They don't get drafted, they don't like where they got drafted, they don't like the contract they got offered? Fine, forget it. I'm going back to school. Try me again next year, NBA.

I can see the undrafted going back to school. That even makes sense. I'm having a hard time envisioning a guy getting drafted in the second round, deciding he needs a guaranteed contract, turning down the NBA, going back to school, and getting drafted in the lottery. I suppose it could happen, but most players are fairly known quantities by the NBA after a year or two in college. I could be wrong, but how many players dramatically improve their draft stock with an extra year? Maybe one or two a year? Most guys at this point are drafted based on their potential these days anyway.

As it is, players can "declare" for the draft and come back if they don't hire an agent. Going to skills evaluations, meeting with teams, traveling from city to city costs money, and players have to foot the bill themselves currently to maintain eligibility. The plane tickets alone would be more than most college students could manage on their own. Is the NCAA going to follow each paper trail to be certain that the athlete paid their own way for each meal and plane ticket? Or does the NCAA lax their rules surrounding amateurism?


The NBA would hate that in a big way, as teams would have to draft guys not knowing if they're going to be able to sign them. Could mean a lot of wasted draft picks, which can be franchise killers. The NCAA's response to that complaint should be: "Too bad. Pound sand. You NBA guys have made rules in your best interest without regard to the interests of the NCAA and its universities and its programs and (in our opinion) its players. Fine. Now we're going to make our rules and align them with our best interests, not yours. You want us to change this new rule back? Fine, make kids either eligible for the draft right out of high school or else not until they've played at least two years of college. Then we'd be happy to change our rule back."

I don't see that the two years college would be much different than where we are now, other than allowing some players to bypass college altogether.


The final elephant in the room to me is that a substantial part of the value proposition of collegiate sports is that there is supposed to be some connection between the players and the school. We're all hypocrites to a degree in seeing high major athletics as related to the university (albeit to a lesser degree at a place like Duke or Stanford or Notre Dame or BC or Georgia Tech), but the illusion (willful delusion?) that the players are amatuers is essential to the value of college sports. If this becomes just officially the minor leagues, why bother watching? Or caring?

Well, that concept went the way of the dodo once schools started making allowances for athletic scholarships for students who wouldn't normally qualify for their colleges. That ship sailed a LONG time ago, and now there's so much money involved, I can't see it going backwards. I do agree with your Title IX concerns. As I say, I would advocated for a separate body to govern basketball and football. The revenue from these sports could still go back to the institutions, subsidizing the other sports, but the NCAA could go back to the business it was originally intended and not have to spend time chasing paper trails of merchandise signed by 19 year olds.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
08-08-2013, 11:01 AM
And, the argument that boosters, etc will pay an athlete $10K to mow his lawn... well, how many of these will be at a single school. As others have said, the top players gravitate to the top schools already... and there are only a few positions available. So not every top player will go to only the top schools where boosters, etc will pay for menial jobs, autographs, jerseys, etc.

Lots. How many would it take to get a handful of skills players to sign up for 6 figure offers and take your team to the next level?

subzero02
08-08-2013, 12:20 PM
After reading so much about UNC's academic scandal, I really have trouble with any worries about money...eventually it will sort itself out. UNC is not alone in having "student" athletes who do not know what a paragraph is, yet still it appears that all the NCAA worries about is money. Once the money issue is finally "corrected", will anyone care if these players are taking bona fide classes and producing valid class work? I am not complaining about a handful of crip courses, I am talking about a system that seems indifferent to profiting from the efforts of players who cannot pass a GED exam (do GED exams exist?).

Until I see more NCAA effort to protect academic integrity, D-1 revenue sports' fate is to become a gloried farm system. At that point, why not just watch the best play in the NFL/NBA?

The GED is based entirely on an exam. Class attendance and class performance are not factors in the diploma awarding process. I also agree, there are athletes in college who could not pass the GED test.

luburch
08-08-2013, 05:32 PM
So the NCAA will no longer sell team related merchandise on their website.

@SportsCenter: BREAKING: NCAA says it will no longer sell team-related merchandise on its website, calling it "hypocritical."

tommy
08-09-2013, 01:50 AM
I can see the undrafted going back to school. That even makes sense. I'm having a hard time envisioning a guy getting drafted in the second round, deciding he needs a guaranteed contract, turning down the NBA, going back to school, and getting drafted in the lottery. I suppose it could happen, but most players are fairly known quantities by the NBA after a year or two in college. I could be wrong, but how many players dramatically improve their draft stock with an extra year? Maybe one or two a year? Most guys at this point are drafted based on their potential these days anyway.

I would say that the following first round picks (not including freshmen like #1 pick Anthony Bennett or Nerlens Noel) from the recent 2013 NBA Draft increased their draft position significantly by playing college basketball in 2012-2013:
Victor Oladipo, Otto Porter, Cody Zeller, Alex Len, Kentavious Caldwell-Pope, Trey Burke, Kelly Olynyk, Shane Larkin, Gorgui Dieng, Tim Hardaway, Jr., Allen Crabbe, Carrick Felix, Nate Wolters, and Jeff Withey. The first seven on that list became lottery picks. I think only Zeller and perhaps Burke or Porter would've been lottery picks a year ago. Looking at my whole list, that's a lot of guys, and that's just from this year's first round. One can argue at the margins about this guy or that, but nevertheless, that's a lot of guys who got drafted significantly higher than they would have had they come out for the 2012 draft, and a bunch of them got into the lottery who definitely wouldn't have last year.



I don't see that the two years college would be much different than where we are now, other than allowing some players to bypass college altogether.
I can't find it right now, but I'm pretty sure Coach K is on record as favoring a minimum two year rule.

Des Esseintes
08-09-2013, 04:03 AM
I would say that the following first round picks (not including freshmen like #1 pick Anthony Bennett or Nerlens Noel) from the recent 2013 NBA Draft increased their draft position significantly by playing college basketball in 2012-2013:
Victor Oladipo, Otto Porter, Cody Zeller, Alex Len, Kentavious Caldwell-Pope, Trey Burke, Kelly Olynyk, Shane Larkin, Gorgui Dieng, Tim Hardaway, Jr., Allen Crabbe, Carrick Felix, Nate Wolters, and Jeff Withey. The first seven on that list became lottery picks. I think only Zeller and perhaps Burke or Porter would've been lottery picks a year ago. Looking at my whole list, that's a lot of guys, and that's just from this year's first round. One can argue at the margins about this guy or that, but nevertheless, that's a lot of guys who got drafted significantly higher than they would have had they come out for the 2012 draft, and a bunch of them got into the lottery who definitely wouldn't have last year.


I don't know it for certain, but I suspect the NCAA denies the return to school of drafted players less from acquiescence to the NBA and more from its own self-interest. I think the NCAA fears that if players could come back at will you'd see a massive increase in guys declaring for the draft. Roster uncertainty would be dragged out into July or even August. We've seen the coaches hate waiting to know who's on their team: witness the new rule that required players to declare or come back to school earlier than ever before that was instituted in recent seasons. Whether the NBA would feel the sting of such a move is far less certain than the chaos it would sew in the college ranks. Just hard to see how much leverage the organization wields on this issue.

rsvman
08-09-2013, 10:23 AM
Bilas doesn't do consulting, because that would require dealing with solutions and consequences. Whining on Twitter is much easier.

The widely held belief that unless a person has a solution to a problem he/she should not talk about said problem is completely wrong, in my opinion.

If the world had to wait for perfect solutions before problems could be brought to the fore, progress in any endeavor would be considerably slowed down. Solutions can never be crafted if problems are not recognized; the earlier, the better.

ChillinDuke
08-09-2013, 11:37 AM
The widely held belief that unless a person has a solution to a problem he/she should not talk about said problem is completely wrong, in my opinion.

If the world had to wait for perfect solutions before problems could be brought to the fore, progress in any endeavor would be considerably slowed down. Solutions can never be crafted if problems are not recognized; the earlier, the better.

The first time your kid says, "Are we there yet?" in the car, he or she is bringing a problem to the fore.

The 7,251st time your kid says, "Are we there yet?" is just annoying and doesn't change the mileage remaining.

- Chillin

rsvman
08-09-2013, 11:48 AM
The first time your kid says, "Are we there yet?" in the car, he or she is bringing a problem to the fore.

The 7,251st time your kid says, "Are we there yet?" is just annoying and doesn't change the mileage remaining.

- Chillin

Completely disagree. This is a bad analogy. Your child is not bringing a problem to your attention; he/she is merely expressing displeasure with a situation that he/she finds disagreeable. It's not really a "problem," in the traditional sense, as it lacks a solution. It's not that your child is pointing out soluble problem but not providing a solution, which is the traditional sense in which people say that nobody should complain unless they offer an alternative solution.

I continue to assert that that particular maxim is fundamentally flawed.

SoCalDukeFan
08-09-2013, 12:10 PM
So the NCAA will no longer sell team related merchandise on their website.

@SportsCenter: BREAKING: NCAA says it will no longer sell team-related merchandise on its website, calling it "hypocritical."

Of course NCAA member schools continue the hyprocrisy.

I would concede that perhaps NCAA President Mark Emmert did not know what was going on the website, but some NCAA people certainly should have known. Why did they allow the hyprocrisy to exist in the first place?

Kudos galore to Jay Bilas. I don't know if Jay has a perfect fix for the NCAA but certainly something needs to be fixed.

SoCal

DevilFalcon
08-09-2013, 12:16 PM
I have had some dislike for Bilas over the years since leaving Duke as he has always seemed to be anit-Duke, so as to make sure as to not look like a Duke biased Bilas. The only really positive comment I can remember was when it was announced Irving was to return for the Tournament, he said 'can I change my bracket, lookout' or something to that effect.
However, I must give a lot of respect to him for calling this out and creating such a stir. Well done Jay, well done.

Des Esseintes
08-09-2013, 01:59 PM
The widely held belief that unless a person has a solution to a problem he/she should not talk about said problem is completely wrong, in my opinion.

If the world had to wait for perfect solutions before problems could be brought to the fore, progress in any endeavor would be considerably slowed down. Solutions can never be crafted if problems are not recognized; the earlier, the better.

Sure. But I doubt Duvall nor anyone else on this board would disagree. Instead, what some of us have objected to in Bilas's critique--and Jay is hardly alone in his behavior--has been the posture that there are simple, straightforward solutions to what he calls NCAA "hypocrisy." The issue of athlete compensation is incredibly thorny, but you'd never get that impression to hear Bilas talk. I think that aiding progress requires at least nodding to the complexity of a problem. (For example, admitting that profits from the player jersey sales he cited so hilariously on the NCAA website go to, you know, paying for wrestling, swimming, track and all the other sports pushed aside by football and basketball.) Otherwise, the commentator is just adding heat without light.

rsvman
08-09-2013, 02:11 PM
Sure. But I doubt Duvall nor anyone else on this board would disagree. Instead, what some of us have objected to in Bilas's critique--and Jay is hardly alone in his behavior--has been the posture that there are simple, straightforward solutions to what he calls NCAA "hypocrisy." The issue of athlete compensation is incredibly thorny, but you'd never get that impression to hear Bilas talk. I think that aiding progress requires at least nodding to the complexity of a problem. (For example, admitting that profits from the player jersey sales he cited so hilariously on the NCAA website go to, you know, paying for wrestling, swimming, track and all the other sports pushed aside by football and basketball.) Otherwise, the commentator is just adding heat without light.

Fair enough.

ChillinDuke
08-09-2013, 02:20 PM
Completely disagree. This is a bad analogy. Your child is not bringing a problem to your attention; he/she is merely expressing displeasure with a situation that he/she finds disagreeable. It's not really a "problem," in the traditional sense, as it lacks a solution. It's not that your child is pointing out soluble problem but not providing a solution, which is the traditional sense in which people say that nobody should complain unless they offer an alternative solution.

I continue to assert that that particular maxim is fundamentally flawed.

The analogy was terrible. I was more trying to be slightly funny.

And I admit, I'm not funny.

Des Esseintes said it best.

- Chillin

gus
08-09-2013, 02:43 PM
Bilas doesn't do consulting, because that would require dealing with solutions and consequences. Whining on Twitter is much easier.

I don't really want to derail an interesting conversation, but I do have to remark that Duvall clearly has a far different experience with consultants than I do.

dyedwab
08-09-2013, 03:04 PM
Sure. But I doubt Duvall nor anyone else on this board would disagree. Instead, what some of us have objected to in Bilas's critique--and Jay is hardly alone in his behavior--has been the posture that there are simple, straightforward solutions to what he calls NCAA "hypocrisy." The issue of athlete compensation is incredibly thorny, but you'd never get that impression to hear Bilas talk. I think that aiding progress requires at least nodding to the complexity of a problem. (For example, admitting that profits from the player jersey sales he cited so hilariously on the NCAA website go to, you know, paying for wrestling, swimming, track and all the other sports pushed aside by football and basketball.) Otherwise, the commentator is just adding heat without light.

Boy, I've heard Bilas a lot on this issue and his posture is certainly not that their are easy solution. He has argued for a range of solution, including separating out Basketball under a different administrative structure, creating some ways for players to be paid, improving scholarships, etc. But he makes his points in short burst by illustrating the absurdity of the current posture taken by the NCAA - mostly because the NCAA has essentially not developed any sort of response.

Again, Bilas believes that it is an injustice that the NCAA, the member schools, the coaches, etc. have been making more and more money while the players have not (I'm not arguing that this is correct - I'm sayind that this is his view). He also views the NCAA as proverbially fiddling while Rome is burning.

Bilas is not simply saying "Players should be paid, and that's that."

Atlanta Duke
08-12-2013, 08:32 AM
SI.com media columnist Richard Deitsch interviews Jay Bilas (on vacation in Paris - life is good) regarding Jay's excellent adventure on Twitter last week

Look, I've had some fun with the reactions to this on Twitter, but this isn't about me. This is about NCAA policy, and a small part of the larger, overall point that the NCAA's policy on amateurism is unjustifiable in this multi-billion dollar commercial enterprise of college sports.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/more/news/20130811/jay-bilas-nbc-premier-league-deitsch/?sct=hp_wr_a1&eref=sihp

JasonEvans
08-12-2013, 09:28 AM
So, folks are aware that the NCAA defense in the O'Bannon lawsuit has always been that people buy the jersey because of the school, not the player. The NCAA's lawyers contend that the numbers on the back mean nothing to the fans which is why the players who wore those numbers should not get any money.

Well, I wish I could have been a fly on the wall to hear the conversation last week when Jay began posting his tweets with "here is what comes up when you type Clowney's name into the NCAA merchandise search engine..."

I wonder if the NCAA attorneys immediately entered into settlement discussions. Is there any way they can settle and preserve their current way of doing business? Gonna be tough...

-Jason "is there anyone who doubts that BCS level football and basketball players will be paid something -- probably about a $5k stipend -- in the next 5 years?" Evans

Dev11
08-12-2013, 10:23 AM
So, folks are aware that the NCAA defense in the O'Bannon lawsuit has always been that people buy the jersey because of the school, not the player. The NCAA's lawyers contend that the numbers on the back mean nothing to the fans which is why the players who wore those numbers should not get any money.

It's amazing how so many Duke students who graduated around 2011 considered one of 30, 12, 2, or 3 as their favorite numbers, at least enough so that they bought Duke basketball jerseys with those numbers en masse.

:rolleyes:

Atlanta Duke
08-12-2013, 10:38 AM
So, folks are aware that the NCAA defense in the O'Bannon lawsuit has always been that people buy the jersey because of the school, not the player.

At the moment the O'Bannon attorneys are leaving the issues of damages relating to jerseys out of their lawsuit - guess they figure the TV revenue is the money pot with regard to getting paid. As Andy Staples wrote on SI.com last week

Originally, they went after part of the profits from the EA Sports video games for former athletes. Now, they're hoping to collect a piece of that money as well as a piece of NCAA and conference television revenue for former and current athletes. [Judge Claudia] Wilken was trying to clarify the strategy when she asked, "I gather jerseys and bobbleheads and all of that are out?" [O'Bannon attorney Michael] Hausfield's reply: "Yes, your honor." Going after jerseys might require another strategy change, and Hausfeld and his team have a pretty good case as-is. So maybe they should leave this one for someone else.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130807/jersey-ncaa-sales-manziel-clowney/

sporthenry
08-12-2013, 02:28 PM
The widely held belief that unless a person has a solution to a problem he/she should not talk about said problem is completely wrong, in my opinion.

If the world had to wait for perfect solutions before problems could be brought to the fore, progress in any endeavor would be considerably slowed down. Solutions can never be crafted if problems are not recognized; the earlier, the better.

Agreed. The people who have complained the most about Bilas not having a real solution are the same who don't see a problem. The first issue to address is acknowledging there is a problem. So if you don't think there is a problem with the NCAA selling a jersey with the #30 on it, but Seth not being able to sell his #30 jersey, I don't know what to tell you.

Bilas does know how to beat a dead horse but so does anyone who takes up trying to change the way something works. I don't know what his motives are with respect to just driving ratings or possibly setting himself up for a position in the NCAA, nor do I really care. I can take his arguments at face value and understand the hypocrisy of it all. But yeah, back in the day when I played NCAA BAsketball and Duke just happened to have a 6'4 white guy wearing a #4 jersey who was the best shooter in the game, I didn't see any relevant comparisons.

ChillinDuke
08-12-2013, 03:28 PM
Agreed. The people who have complained the most about Bilas not having a real solution are the same who don't see a problem. The first issue to address is acknowledging there is a problem. So if you don't think there is a problem with the NCAA selling a jersey with the #30 on it, but Seth not being able to sell his #30 jersey, I don't know what to tell you.

Bilas does know how to beat a dead horse but so does anyone who takes up trying to change the way something works. I don't know what his motives are with respect to just driving ratings or possibly setting himself up for a position in the NCAA, nor do I really care. I can take his arguments at face value and understand the hypocrisy of it all. But yeah, back in the day when I played NCAA BAsketball and Duke just happened to have a 6'4 white guy wearing a #4 jersey who was the best shooter in the game, I didn't see any relevant comparisons.

I, for one, admit wholeheartedly that there's a problem here. And I continue to criticize Bilas' ad nauseum rhetoric.

Should I post endlessly on here about my criticism for Bilas, I'm sure others would give me negative feedback at some point.

Consider this my negative feedback toward Jay re: constantly saying the same thing over and over. I get it. I got it long ago.

I think Jason Evans is right about the 5K stipend or whatever monetary amount. Beyond that, this situation is a tough one.

- Chillin

toooskies
08-12-2013, 04:16 PM
The thing is, the first steps towards moving to a more fair system for the players is really, really easy. Bilas has stated it many times: move to the Olympic system, at least as a first step. That doesn't even obligate the athletic departments to pay anyone!

- Allow sponsorships, off-season jobs, and whatever else that is currently prohibited.

- Stop regulating when/whether a player can play in specific tournaments.

- Stop caring whether a player has an agent or not. Heck, make all sponsor money go through an agent-- it will make it all easier to regulate, and then every agent and their cronies has an interest in reporting any violations of the rules.

Heck, there are probably ways that the NCAA can get a cut of the players' take for their sponsorships. Charge the players a cut of their sponsorships whenever they wear team gear, or something.

The point is, not only is the NCAA not paying them, they are actively preventing them from getting any amount of money otherwise. Which means players try to get money under the table signing autographs, or trading "memorabilia", or by using cars which some unsavory source may have provided for them. At some point all the bad PR caused by their rules will make those rules go away, one way or another. It's because of those rules that the integrity of Ohio State, UNC, USC, Miami, and others are less than pure officially, and just about everyone else's is assumed to be just as bad. Why continue trying to enforce unenforceable standards, and see yourself punished for having them? Why not just let the players play, let them earn money (and try to guide them towards the "right" way to do it), and just run the competitions instead of running the players' lives?

Des Esseintes
08-12-2013, 05:57 PM
The thing is, the first steps towards moving to a more fair system for the players is really, really easy. Bilas has stated it many times: move to the Olympic system, at least as a first step. That doesn't even obligate the athletic departments to pay anyone!

- Allow sponsorships, off-season jobs, and whatever else that is currently prohibited.

- Stop regulating when/whether a player can play in specific tournaments.

- Stop caring whether a player has an agent or not. Heck, make all sponsor money go through an agent-- it will make it all easier to regulate, and then every agent and their cronies has an interest in reporting any violations of the rules.

Heck, there are probably ways that the NCAA can get a cut of the players' take for their sponsorships. Charge the players a cut of their sponsorships whenever they wear team gear, or something.

The point is, not only is the NCAA not paying them, they are actively preventing them from getting any amount of money otherwise. Which means players try to get money under the table signing autographs, or trading "memorabilia", or by using cars which some unsavory source may have provided for them. At some point all the bad PR caused by their rules will make those rules go away, one way or another. It's because of those rules that the integrity of Ohio State, UNC, USC, Miami, and others are less than pure officially, and just about everyone else's is assumed to be just as bad. Why continue trying to enforce unenforceable standards, and see yourself punished for having them? Why not just let the players play, let them earn money (and try to guide them towards the "right" way to do it), and just run the competitions instead of running the players' lives?

Your "first step" is allowing boosters to pay players anything they want, for anything. There isn't a step beyond that. It's Thunderdome.

lotusland
08-12-2013, 06:13 PM
The thing is, the first steps towards moving to a more fair system for the players is really, really easy. Bilas has stated it many times: move to the Olympic system, at least as a first step. That doesn't even obligate the athletic departments to pay anyone!

- Allow sponsorships, off-season jobs, and whatever else that is currently prohibited.

- Stop regulating when/whether a player can play in specific tournaments.

- Stop caring whether a player has an agent or not. Heck, make all sponsor money go through an agent-- it will make it all easier to regulate, and then every agent and their cronies has an interest in reporting any violations of the rules.

Heck, there are probably ways that the NCAA can get a cut of the players' take for their sponsorships. Charge the players a cut of their sponsorships whenever they wear team gear, or something.

The point is, not only is the NCAA not paying them, they are actively preventing them from getting any amount of money otherwise. Which means players try to get money under the table signing autographs, or trading "memorabilia", or by using cars which some unsavory source may have provided for them. At some point all the bad PR caused by their rules will make those rules go away, one way or another. It's because of those rules that the integrity of Ohio State, UNC, USC, Miami, and others are less than pure officially, and just about everyone else's is assumed to be just as bad. Why continue trying to enforce unenforceable standards, and see yourself punished for having them? Why not just let the players play, let them earn money (and try to guide them towards the "right" way to do it), and just run the competitions instead of running the players' lives?

So shoe company's decide where the kids play? An adidas contract means either UCLA or another adidas school or an Under Armour contract means Maryland or Oregon, etc.? I'll admit that may actually be better than actual recruiting. Maybe we could be the Nike Duke Blue Devils. Maybe Josh could at least do some crazy used car salesmen advertisements for some Durham dealerships. There are infinite possibilities. I can't wait.:rolleyes:

ArnieMc
08-12-2013, 06:19 PM
. . .
The point is, not only is the NCAA not paying them, they are actively preventing them from getting any amount of money otherwise. Which means players try to get money under the table signing autographs, or trading "memorabilia", or by using cars which some unsavory source may have provided for them. At some point all the bad PR caused by their rules will make those rules go away, one way or another. It's because of those rules that the integrity of Ohio State, UNC, USC, Miami, and others are less than pure officially, and just about everyone else's is assumed to be just as bad. Why continue trying to enforce unenforceable standards, and see yourself punished for having them? Why not just let the players play, let them earn money (and try to guide them towards the "right" way to do it), and just run the competitions instead of running the players' lives?Actually, it's because they broke those rules, and, based on their reactions to the scandals, they appear to have no integrity.

If you get rid of all laws, there would be no criminals. Without child molestation laws, Jerry Sandusky is a model citizen.

Dev11
08-12-2013, 07:52 PM
Actually, it's because they broke those rules, and, based on their reactions to the scandals, they appear to have no integrity.

If you get rid of all laws, there would be no criminals. Without child molestation laws, Jerry Sandusky is a model citizen.

Letting students earn money because they work hard and are famous is nothing like child molestation.

ForkFondler
08-12-2013, 08:16 PM
Letting students earn money because they work hard and are famous is nothing like child molestation.

Well, yeah -- punishing child molesters is far less lucrative than being one.

Jarhead
08-12-2013, 08:47 PM
So, folks are aware that the NCAA defense in the O'Bannon lawsuit has always been that people buy the jersey because of the school, not the player. The NCAA's lawyers contend that the numbers on the back mean nothing to the fans which is why the players who wore those numbers should not get any money.

Well, I wish I could have been a fly on the wall to hear the conversation last week when Jay began posting his tweets with "here is what comes up when you type Clowney's name into the NCAA merchandise search engine..."

I wonder if the NCAA attorneys immediately entered into settlement discussions. Is there any way they can settle and preserve their current way of doing business? Gonna be tough...

-Jason "is there anyone who doubts that BCS level football and basketball players will be paid something -- probably about a $5k stipend -- in the next 5 years?" Evans

Jason, I am not totally against stipends for students, but why are the discussions limiting the stipends to just football and basketball players? If there are stipends, all athletes should be eligible. In fact, all students should get them for participating in any sanctioned extracurricular activity in which they participate. Many already do, for work they do on campus. Wages are what they are called, but athletes are not allowed to get such wages.

This over simplifies the whole issue, and does not address the sources of the funds used to pay the stipends. Obviously, revenue generated by college sports would be the best source of funding, but there are others. I don't think it would take much to come up with a plan. The NCAA could come up with a decent plan, but not with the leadership it has now.

Duvall
08-12-2013, 08:56 PM
Well, yeah -- punishing child molesters is far less lucrative than being one.

What?

Duvall
08-12-2013, 08:57 PM
Letting students earn money because they work hard and are famous is nothing like child molestation.

Obviously. I wish people would maintain a similar perspective the next time someone tries to compare a college scholarship to chattel slavery, though.

Indoor66
08-12-2013, 09:03 PM
Obviously. I wish people would maintain a similar perspective the next time someone tries to compare a college scholarship to chattel slavery, though.

I agree with you on this one. That said, some of us remember Dean Latty's Chattel Transactions class - that predates the UCC! Long live the Forms of Actions.

toooskies
08-12-2013, 09:23 PM
So shoe company's decide where the kids play? An adidas contract means either UCLA or another adidas school or an Under Armour contract means Maryland or Oregon, etc.?

If that we're true, then Nike would buy a pro team and only endorse those players. Oh, wait-- no, they sponsor marketable players.

You need a better reason to restrict these kids besides "I won't like who pays them." That really doesn't affect how you watch any pro sport, does it? Do you root against Oregon because Nike pays for all their facilities?

Dev11
08-12-2013, 09:34 PM
Obviously. I wish people would maintain a similar perspective the next time someone tries to compare a college scholarship to chattel slavery, though.

I don't think Bilas ever discusses the issues at hand as being relative to slavery, but obviously slavery can be touchy in this country.

Duvall
08-13-2013, 12:23 AM
If that we're true, then Nike would buy a pro team and only endorse those players. Oh, wait-- no, they sponsor marketable players.

You need a better reason to restrict these kids besides "I won't like who pays them." That really doesn't affect how you watch any pro sport, does it? Do you root against Oregon because Nike pays for all their facilities?

Does it really make sense to turn over control of the most visible activity on a university's campus to any halfwit with more money than sense? That seems like an invitation to disaster.

JasonEvans
08-13-2013, 12:43 PM
Jason, I am not totally against stipends for students, but why are the discussions limiting the stipends to just football and basketball players? If there are stipends, all athletes should be eligible. In fact, all students should get them for participating in any sanctioned extracurricular activity in which they participate. Many already do, for work they do on campus. Wages are what they are called, but athletes are not allowed to get such wages.

This over simplifies the whole issue, and does not address the sources of the funds used to pay the stipends. Obviously, revenue generated by college sports would be the best source of funding, but there are others. I don't think it would take much to come up with a plan. The NCAA could come up with a decent plan, but not with the leadership it has now.

Indulge me for a moment for a reflection on where I come at on this whole thing.

About 25 years ago, when I was at Duke, I was friends with a lot of the basketball players (male and female) as well as swimmers, football players, and other athletes. I did my freshman year in Wannamaker, which was filled with athletes so I knew a lot of the sports players at Duke quite well. I took classes with many of them and we would have to schedule study sessions around their practice or game schedules. We would do the same thing with friends of mine who had work study jobs (checking IDs at Card, working in the library, stuff like that). I noticed that my friends who would disappear to do their jobs were getting paid but the athletes I knew were not. It struck me as strange as they both were giving time to University activities.

So, for at least the past two decades, I have been an advocate of paying athletes for their time the same way we pay the kid who works in the school store or stacks books in the library. Fix a rate across all schools -- $12/hour sounds good -- and then pay any scholarship athlete that rate for the time they spend on their sport. The NCAA has limits on practice and game time so it would be easy to control this wage and not let it get out of hand. 8 hours a week of practice time, 4 hours a week of game time, 3 hours a week of training room time would be 15 total hours for $180/week for a scholarship athlete in season. No, it would not be enough money to make corruption go away. It would not be enough money to make anyone rich. But, it would be a step in the right direction and would at least begin to compensate these kids for their hard work.

Hoops season goes from mid-October to the end of March, about 24 weeks. That would be just under $4500 for the season for basketball players. It would be logical and make sense. It would give kids enough money to help mom and dad travel to a game or to buy dinner and take a lady to the movies or even to buy a somewhat used car. It would be controllable and does not break the bank. I don't know why the NCAA hasn't done it yet.

-Jason "folks who have been around here a while have head me talk about this before. I just don't get why the NCAA has stuck it out to the death on this stuff. They are fighting a losing battle at this point -- time to give in and start coming up with solutions that are fair and work!" Evans

ChillinDuke
08-13-2013, 12:53 PM
If that we're true, then Nike would buy a pro team and only endorse those players. Oh, wait-- no, they sponsor marketable players.

You need a better reason to restrict these kids besides "I won't like who pays them." That really doesn't affect how you watch any pro sport, does it? Do you root against Oregon because Nike pays for all their facilities?

The point that Duvall is trying to make is that your first bullet (calling it an "easy" "first step") reads as follows, "Allow sponsorships, off-season jobs, and whatever else that is currently prohibited."

OK, so if we allow sponsorships and off-season jobs, the obvious and likely rampant result will be that people with money (agents, boosters, runners, sponsors, whatever...) will start to pay out the wazoo for the best talent to go to their choice team. It becomes all about money - blatantly about money. Shabazz now goes wherever he can get a library information desk job for 100K per year working 2 hrs per week. That was the going rate that this person would employ him for; it's allowed under your rule.

Do you see the ridiculous nature in which this could potentially move the sport?

Now, I get that money runs the sport in indirect ways already - TV exposure/contracts, facilities, coaching staff, education, training, etc. But your first rule has the clear potential for straight up pay-for-play rigging.

That's where I (and others) can't agree with the rule you are proposing or the simplicity with which there are ways to "fix" the system.

- Chillin

cato
08-13-2013, 01:06 PM
Now, I get that money runs the sport in indirect ways already - TV exposure/contracts, facilities, coaching staff, education, training, etc. But your first rule has the clear potential for straight up pay-for-play rigging.

Here's where I, and presumably plenty of others, disagree: there is nothing "indirect" about the fact that money already runs football and basketball. Schools have to invest big time money to draw the best recruits. It is a very direct appeal -- we're spending tons to make your time here more comfortable.

ChillinDuke
08-13-2013, 01:14 PM
Here's where I, and presumably plenty of others, disagree: there is nothing "indirect" about the fact that money already runs football and basketball. Schools have to invest big time money to draw the best recruits. It is a very direct appeal -- we're spending tons to make your time here more comfortable.

Isn't this the definition of indirect? Direct being money in your pocket (pay-for-play). Indirect being money spent on your behalf but not at your discretion.

We're nitpicking now. Regardless, I see your point. I guess the difference of opinion lies, to some degree, in this nuance.

- Chillin

Atlanta Duke
08-13-2013, 01:57 PM
-Jason "folks who have been around here a while have head me talk about this before. I just don't get why the NCAA has stuck it out to the death on this stuff. They are fighting a losing battle at this point -- time to give in and start coming up with solutions that are fair and work!" Evans

It is also potentially a labor law and tax issue - as discussed in this article, pull out one card and the entire house potentially crashes down

If a court, Congress or the National Labor Relations Board ruled college athletes were employees, a host of new issues arise, as do costs. In addition to the compensation provided to athletes, as an employer the athletic department would have to pay the following for each athlete: Social Security at a rate of 6.2% on the first $106,800 of compensation (in 2011), 1.45% for Medicare, with no cap, federal and state unemployment tax and worker’s compensation insurance, which varies in expense by state by averages 2-3 percent....

The real cost, however, is in the athletic department losing its tax exemption under Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3). ...

In addition to the taxes each athletic department would have to pay on any income, they’d likely lose large amounts of revenue as a result of donors no longer being able to make tax-deductible contributions.

http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/08/10/why-college-athletes-will-never-be-paid/

I do not know if or how paying someone for use of their likeness gets around these potential problems but I assume the NCAA has to have at discussed a plan what to do if (when?) it loses the O'Bannon case

Of course if all else fails Wayne Delany has put out there the possibility of Congress getting involved to keep the circus open for business


“I don’t think there is any compromise on it,” he said. “I think if it (the O’Bannon case) succeeds at the lower court level, it’ll get appealed, and appealed again....
And if we’re unsuccessful, the people in Congress will have to figure out what they do with Title IX, and what they do with the anti-trust laws, and we’ll have to figure out where we fit in and where we want to be.”

http://www.indystar.com/article/20130806/SPORTS15/308060073/Bob-Kravitz-Big-Ten-commissioner-Jim-Delany-opines-pressing-NCAA-issues-day

Of course those in Congress who have schools that would be hurt by the Big Five conferences picking up the ball and leaving the NCAA might not see this the same way Mr. Delany does

Wheat/"/"/"
08-13-2013, 02:34 PM
I don't necessarily think the schools should have to pay the athletes. I can be persuaded that the compensation they receive, with scholarships, meals, lodging, exposure, training etc...is fair.

What is not fair is denying them the ability and the right to sell their celebrity, based on their skills. As long as somebody wants to pay them, they have the right to be paid.

Everything should be out in the open. All sources of income a player can command. Taxed, etc...Schools can require athletes to make progress towards a degree and stay academically eligible. Anyone who goes "under the table" can be dismissed.

Maybe schools can only be allowed to have x number of athletes in a certain category of star players...or something like that, to try and achieve some balance, it would be no more trouble than it is under the system we have now.

Whatever, just because its a tough problem doesn't mean we don't try to do what's right. Fair rules can be implemented without denying these legally adult athletes with earning power....their constitutional right to earn money.

So, first we must start with recognizing an athletes right to earn income, and go from there.

IMO, no-one should oppose an adult (18+) with marketable skills from getting paid while in school, as long as its in the sunshine.

It's the best of capitalism and the American way.

nocilla
08-13-2013, 03:09 PM
The thread about Oregon's facilities is further proof (to me anyway) that these athletes are being compensated very well. As several others have pointed out, it's not just the scholarship for a free education, (of which is very valuable in itself) it's also the free room and board, free food on demand, free shoes, free clothes and other supply's, free Ipads, free traveling, free training and free coaching to make yourself a better athlete, free use of the school's logo and branding to promote your own image, free use of the school's fans to talk you up, free exposure through tv, radio, sports writers to make yourself a celebrity. How much are schools currently spending on athletes? How much of an athlete's image is a direct result of investments made by the school through training, coaching, and publicity?

JasonEvans
08-13-2013, 03:58 PM
The thread about Oregon's facilities is further proof (to me anyway) that these athletes are being compensated very well. As several others have pointed out, it's not just the scholarship for a free education, (of which is very valuable in itself) it's also the free room and board, free food on demand, free shoes, free clothes and other supply's, free Ipads, free traveling, free training and free coaching to make yourself a better athlete, free use of the school's logo and branding to promote your own image, free use of the school's fans to talk you up, free exposure through tv, radio, sports writers to make yourself a celebrity. How much are schools currently spending on athletes? How much of an athlete's image is a direct result of investments made by the school through training, coaching, and publicity?

Nocilla,

We can argue about whether the things you point out as benefits of playing a big-time collegiate sport are fair compensation for the athletes -- and I can see arguments on both sides of that issue. But there is one thing I feel everyone can agree upon regarding some of the wording in your post...

...They ain't getting nothing FOR FREE!

In fact the athletes work quite hard in high school, during the summer, and once they arrive in school to get the benefits you described. It is not FREE. It is the result of hundreds, no thousands, of hours of training and work. And it is something that results from truly unique skills and abilities -- were I to work as hard as they do at basketball/football/tennis, I would not be nearly the player that they are.

So, all those things you describe, they are most certainly not free. No player gets those things if he chooses to sit on his backside all day watching TV and not attending practices and training sessions.

Put simply -- there is no question that these players are working hard and performing very advanced jobs.

The only question is if the tuition, training, room, board, and so on is adequate payment for the jobs they are performing.

-Jason "agreed?" Evans

toooskies
08-13-2013, 05:37 PM
The thread about Oregon's facilities is further proof (to me anyway) that these athletes are being compensated very well. As several others have pointed out, it's not just the scholarship for a free education, (of which is very valuable in itself) it's also the free room and board, free food on demand, free shoes, free clothes and other supply's, free Ipads, free traveling, free training and free coaching to make yourself a better athlete, free use of the school's logo and branding to promote your own image, free use of the school's fans to talk you up, free exposure through tv, radio, sports writers to make yourself a celebrity. How much are schools currently spending on athletes? How much of an athlete's image is a direct result of investments made by the school through training, coaching, and publicity?

The cleaning staff for the rooms gets paid, the cooks for the board/free food get paid, Nike gets paid for the free shoes/clothes (in advertisment), Apple gets paid, the airlines get paid, the trainers get paid, the coaches get paid. The school's branding and marketing departments get paid, the commentators and sports writers get paid.

The problem here is that schools keep inventing new ways to NOT pay the players but still compensate them somehow. "New facilities" is code for "we have a pile of money to dump into our athletics program, but it can't directly go to athletes; this is just about the only other thing we're allowed to do."

It's clear that there's a two-way relationship, that players benefit above their alternatives by going to college and that colleges benefit from the relationship as well. Colleges benefit far more than the players, mostly because the colleges have rules that control the the players' lives far beyond any other types of students. Athletics is the only field of "study" where the NCAA believes that paid opportunities (or some unpaid ones) are bad for the student outside the University setting, and that's for the school's benefit and not the student athlete's.

ChillinDuke
08-13-2013, 07:00 PM
I don't necessarily think the schools should have to pay the athletes. I can be persuaded that the compensation they receive, with scholarships, meals, lodging, exposure, training etc...is fair.

What is not fair is denying them the ability and the right to sell their celebrity, based on their skills. As long as somebody wants to pay them, they have the right to be paid.

Everything should be out in the open. All sources of income a player can command. Taxed, etc...Schools can require athletes to make progress towards a degree and stay academically eligible. Anyone who goes "under the table" can be dismissed.

Maybe schools can only be allowed to have x number of athletes in a certain category of star players...or something like that, to try and achieve some balance, it would be no more trouble than it is under the system we have now.

Whatever, just because its a tough problem doesn't mean we don't try to do what's right. Fair rules can be implemented without denying these legally adult athletes with earning power....their constitutional right to earn money.

So, first we must start with recognizing an athletes right to earn income, and go from there.

IMO, no-one should oppose an adult (18+) with marketable skills from getting paid while in school, as long as its in the sunshine.

It's the best of capitalism and the American way.

Fair point of view. I don't disagree that the players have a right to earn money if it can be commanded by their skills/services. They should have that right. So, in and of that singular point, I'm in agreement with you.

The question I keep coming back to, and it's a finicky problem with characteristics that are difficult to quantify (for me), is what money can these kids/players actually command were it not for the schools and platform in which they are playing? Think about that deeply for a second - as I fear this is becoming a polarized discussion with posters choosing sides and perhaps not deeply considering the other side. How much compensation do you think these kids could command in high school for playing basketball? Realistically. Would you pay to see them play? Consider that there is the NBA, NBA-DL ("minor leagues"), Euro Leagues, college ball, and maybe even other options for which you could spend your money. So again, would you pay to see them in high school? Would you pay for their jersey? Would you pay for their autograph? Or is it an interest that you take in these kids because you want to see them play on your college team/play in college so you will stay attune to who's who in high school, who's rising and falling, and the general goings on? As an example, I would probably check out a stud kid at the local gymnasium once in a while when they came around, but I certainly wouldn't pay to see them. I could almost as easily track their performance online or in the news.

Now, move beyond high school but take college out of the equation, and how much do you think they could command then? Remember, this hypothetical now has the kid post-high school, pre-NBA (NBA has erected a barrier to entry beyond the scope of this NCAA discussion), and not attending college. How much compensation could they command then? Would you pay to watch them play now sans a college name across their chest? Would TV channels even offer such a concept? Would you watch in person? Buy their jersey or autograph? I'm not prodding, I'm genuinely asking. Your answer to some or all of the above could be, "Yes, I would pay." And that's fine - the question just becomes how many people would pay along with you.

My point is, without tapping into a college fanbase and the platform of playing college ball, do we think that these kids would make more than the 40+ (probably considerably more than this, at least at Duke) thousand dollars they are getting in free education/board/food/training/coaching/marketing/etc? Doesn't their general choice to attend college (playing ball) and then further their specific choice of school to a large extent create their ability to be compensated? It seems to me that those are huge factors. No college = minimal compensation, if any, for playing basketball. At least that is what my gut tells me.

To be sure, there are a handful of players at the college level that may be able to command more compensation than the offhand amounts I listed above. The cream of the crop, so to speak. But consider the remaining, vast majority of college players that couldn't reasonably command a cent for their skills. It's not to say they aren't talented kids, but realistically they probably couldn't.

So back to your original point, yes I do agree that it's their right to be compensated if their skills can so command it. But the next logical step from your point is (1) how much compensation do we feel can be commanded by these kids when we factor in that they are already getting a wad of free services provided for them (on the order of tens of thousands of dollars; I understand that this is not cash in their pocket); and (2) if we allow them to command and receive fair compensation, very few will actually be able to take advantage of this - so will the freedom of the cream of the crop to do this negatively affect the vast majority who cannot reasonably tap into any market for their services?

Not easy questions.


...

Put simply -- there is no question that these players are working hard and performing very advanced jobs.

The only question is if the tuition, training, room, board, and so on is adequate payment for the jobs they are performing.

-Jason "agreed?" Evans

Yes, I agree the question is about adequate payment (as I jabber about above). But, in my view, it is also to a large degree about if this payment could have been reasonably achieved without having a college association. And perhaps even more of a consequential question is what happens to the entire system - think: Marquis Wright at Siena, Kris Gulley at Long Beach State, or Tanner Samson at Elon, et al - if players begin to command money, certain schools can't keep up, and strapped athletic departments start wondering if it's in their best interest to even have a basketball program. Think about all the schools that have dropped football programs in the last decade.

Sorry, I said a lot. Some parts more coherent than others. But that is where I am coming from in this discussion and what I am thinking. Yes, I agree with Wheat that they have a right to be compensated if their skills can so command it. But there are larger, overarching questions which arise from this concept and must be considered. And if we find some sort of consensus that players should have, and be able to exercise, the right to fair compensation on their own merits, where do we go from there? What happens to individual cases from the cream of the crop, average joe, and bottom of the barrel levels - as well as the system as a whole?

- Chillin

Wheat/"/"/"
08-13-2013, 09:20 PM
The question I keep coming back to, and it's a finicky problem with characteristics that are difficult to quantify (for me), is what money can these kids/players actually command were it not for the schools and platform in which they are playing? ..........

My point is, without tapping into a college fanbase and the platform of playing college ball, do we think that these kids would make more than the 40+ (probably considerably more than this, at least at Duke) thousand dollars they are getting in free education/board/food/training/coaching/marketing/etc? Doesn't their general choice to attend college (playing ball) and then further their specific choice of school to a large extent create their ability to be compensated?.......

- Chillin

I agree, the platform a college/NCAA provides is extremely valuable, no argument from me there.

Many players, (most?), probably cannot command more value than what a school provides them.

But for me, that doesn't matter. Its about principle. College sports will survive, and continue to prosper, when players can accept some income. I don't see a big change coming after that day.

If there is even one player that can sell himself somehow in the sunshine, he/she should have the right to do so.

It's almost criminal in my mind that the NCAA locks the players earning potential down when, if not technically, they act as a monopoly in the pre NBA market and garner billions of dollars.

I don't really care to hear the NCAA whinning that it will be hard to regulate. Heck, their rules are not exactly easy to manage now.

They need to suck it up and do what's right for an individuals rights.

sagegrouse
08-13-2013, 09:38 PM
It is also potentially a labor law and tax issue - as discussed in this article, pull out one card and the entire house potentially crashes down

If a court, Congress or the National Labor Relations Board ruled college athletes were employees, a host of new issues arise, as do costs. In addition to the compensation provided to athletes, as an employer the athletic department would have to pay the following for each athlete: Social Security at a rate of 6.2% on the first $106,800 of compensation (in 2011), 1.45% for Medicare, with no cap, federal and state unemployment tax and worker’s compensation insurance, which varies in expense by state by averages 2-3 percent....



Atlanta Duke: I believe college athletes will fall under federal labor law when the Antarctic ice cap melts. Congress would never allow it, and I do not believe the Department of Labor has threatened to cover them under the FLSA. Moreover, there are a jillion precedents for those receiving scholarships and fellowships to have those be tax-free. I was fortunate to be exempt under both.

sagegrouse

Atlanta Duke
08-13-2013, 10:32 PM
Atlanta Duke: I believe college athletes will fall under federal labor law when the Antarctic ice cap melts. Congress would never allow it, and I do not believe the Department of Labor has threatened to cover them under the FLSA. Moreover, there are a jillion precedents for those receiving scholarships and fellowships to have those be tax-free. I was fortunate to be exempt under both.

sagegrouse

Although I do not necessarily adopt the views of the author of the article, the issue could be an interesting exam question for a labor law class as the current system decays.

If the athletes received payments above the value of the scholarship, the payments presumably would be enough to be above the minimum wage (currently $7.25 an hour) and current restrictions on practice time probably would keep their "workweek" under the 40 hours a week threshold that would trigger overtime (assuming compensable travel time to and from the road games would not trigger the 40 hour overtime threshold). Even if DOL decided not to enforce the FLSA issues the players of course could bring a private cause of action under 29 USC 216. How the schools would argue the players qualify for an exemption from coverage under 29 U.S.C. 213 and 29 CFR 541 (independent contractors?) would be interesting. Chapter 10 of the DOL Field Operations Handbook at section 10b18 (graduate students) and 10b24 (extracurricular activities) doesn't give a lot of guidance. http://www.dol.gov/whd/FOH/FOH_Ch10.pdf

The students who sell programs at the games are employees. The farther you get away from a scholarship the more slippery the slope becomes.

Of course FLSA compliance is not in the same solar system as the major concerns of the NCAA. Since receiving compensation for use of an athlete's likeness (the relief sought in O'Bannon) certainly is taxable compensation for non-college athletes, how the O'Bannon case can be settled without the college players being deemed to be earning taxable income during their college playing days will be a subject of much high paid lawyering and perhaps Congressional lobbying.

ChillinDuke
08-14-2013, 12:22 AM
I agree, the platform a college/NCAA provides is extremely valuable, no argument from me there.

Many players, (most?), probably cannot command more value than what a school provides them.

But for me, that doesn't matter. Its about principle. College sports will survive, and continue to prosper, when players can accept some income. I don't see a big change coming after that day.

If there is even one player that can sell himself somehow in the sunshine, he/she should have the right to do so.

It's almost criminal in my mind that the NCAA locks the players earning potential down when, if not technically, they act as a monopoly in the pre NBA market and garner billions of dollars.

I don't really care to hear the NCAA whinning that it will be hard to regulate. Heck, their rules are not exactly easy to manage now.

They need to suck it up and do what's right for an individuals rights.

I tend to agree with your point in a vacuum. The problem is, I fear, implementing such a concept would trigger many additional considerations.

I take it your response would be bring on any and all problems, we can deal with them. May be true. But I'm not convinced as yet.

- Chillin

Atlanta Duke
08-14-2013, 08:35 AM
Maybe its the Johnny Manziel story or maybe I am just paying more attention to what is online, but there appear to have been a burst of articles recently on the player compensation/O'Bannon suit issues

This from The Wall Street Journal this morning - according to this analysis of the numbers, the mega-schools can adapt to a loss of revenue through a payout the O'Bannon case but the lower tier schools will take a much more debilitating hit

College Athletics Could Die! Or Not
Worst-Case Scenario: The O'Bannon Case Barely Bruises Ohio State While Flattening Iowa State

A worst-case-scenario hit for the Buckeyes would amount to $12.4 million—or less than 9% of total athletic revenues....

Of Iowa State's $55 million in 2012 athletic revenue, roughly $26 million came from TV rights. Half of that would gouge 24% of revenue from an athletic department ...

What the O'Bannon case doesn't seem to challenge is the basic NCAA rule that potential recruits can be offered only a scholarship. What would represent "Armageddon," [law professor Mark] Mitten said, would be a change allowing recruits to receive money, inciting a cash war between colleges.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323446404579010513489442936.html

nocilla
08-14-2013, 08:46 AM
Nocilla,

We can argue about whether the things you point out as benefits of playing a big-time collegiate sport are fair compensation for the athletes -- and I can see arguments on both sides of that issue. But there is one thing I feel everyone can agree upon regarding some of the wording in your post...

...They ain't getting nothing FOR FREE!

In fact the athletes work quite hard in high school, during the summer, and once they arrive in school to get the benefits you described. It is not FREE. It is the result of hundreds, no thousands, of hours of training and work. And it is something that results from truly unique skills and abilities -- were I to work as hard as they do at basketball/football/tennis, I would not be nearly the player that they are.

So, all those things you describe, they are most certainly not free. No player gets those things if he chooses to sit on his backside all day watching TV and not attending practices and training sessions.

Put simply -- there is no question that these players are working hard and performing very advanced jobs.

The only question is if the tuition, training, room, board, and so on is adequate payment for the jobs they are performing.

-Jason "agreed?" Evans

I think Chillin answered pretty well for me in his post. Furthermore, I understand how much work they put in. I played college football so I have been there. I also know that there are a lot of other students in school that are putting in a lot of work as well. I realize nothing is actually free. Whatever profession you are training for, it usually takes a lot of work. Whether your profession will be in engineering, medical, business, science, whatever, it takes a lot of hard work and effort. But the entity that is providing you that training to turn you into a professional shouldn't have to pay you. It's the other way around.

Let's look at Glen Rice Jr. How many GT jerseys were sold with his number? How many Glen Rice Jr fans bought his D-league jersey? I don't know the actual numbers, but I would imagine there were a lot more of his GT jerseys sold than of his D-league team. So which entity was more influential to jersey sales, Rice or GT?

toooskies
08-14-2013, 08:57 AM
I think Chillin answered pretty well for me in his post. Furthermore, I understand how much work they put in. I played college football so I have been there. I also know that there are a lot of other students in school that are putting in a lot of work as well. I realize nothing is actually free. Whatever profession you are training for, it usually takes a lot of work. Whether your profession will be in engineering, medical, business, science, whatever, it takes a lot of hard work and effort. But the entity that is providing you that training to turn you into a professional shouldn't have to pay you. It's the other way around.

Let's look at Glen Rice Jr. How many GT jerseys were sold with his number? How many Glen Rice Jr fans bought his D-league jersey? I don't know the actual numbers, but I would imagine there were a lot more of his GT jerseys sold than of his D-league team. So which entity was more influential to jersey sales, Rice or GT?
The combination. How many jerseys are sold of GT's last guy on the bench?

nocilla
08-14-2013, 10:41 AM
The combination. How many jerseys are sold of GT's last guy on the bench?

Obviously it is a combination. Fans pick jerseys based on who they like of the current team. The question was who played the bigger role. There are plenty of great players out there that I like, but I'm not going to buy any of their jerseys unless they play for Duke. I would venture a guess that you don't have any jerseys from schools other than Duke.

The Gordog
08-14-2013, 11:25 AM
You need a better reason to restrict these kids besides "I won't like who pays them."

A bit off topic, but I DO root against, or more acurately ignore as much as possible, OKC Thunder because I do not like their owners and how they shafted Seattle.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
08-14-2013, 02:36 PM
I know that this principles of players being able to "market" themselves has gotten a lot of attention in media and here as well, but I don't see any way that it doesn't open up Pandora's box.

The number of wealthy boosters who would happily pony up five or six figures in order to lure top recruits to top programs would make the very idea of amateur pathletics blush, run away, and hide under the sofa somewhere. It would be a question of the rich getting richer. Blue blood programs like Duke, UCLA and Carolina would certainly benefit, as would colleges like OSU and Texas with large wealthy fan bases.

But consider a player like Stephen Curry. After losing to Kansas in the tourney his sophomore year in the Elite Eight, does Curry transfer to a big name program for the promise of six figure "jobs?" Hard to imagine that he doesn't.

I can't see the NCAA going in that direction, regardless of the outcome of these lawsuits and pending litigation. While this "open market" idea makes sense in theory, the practice of it would be complete insanity. How would coaches work with kids who have 7 figures in their bank accounts? How do you expect a 20 year old with hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay attention in class? Seems doomed to me.

A $5K yearly stipend eliminates the concerns over athletes who cannot legally get the sort of job most college students use to cover gas money, pizza slices, or trips to the beach. I'm just a little curious how the NCAA would explain extending this to basketball and football players, but not other student athletes. Someone on one of these threads pointed out the obvious Title IX issues.

I mentioned before that I think the time has come for a separate entity to regulate the "revenue" sports and come up with a reasonable way to deal with the incredible sums of money associated with them. Let the NCAA handle the sorts of academic and eligibility issues it was designed for in the other sports.

Atlanta Duke
08-14-2013, 03:34 PM
I know that this principles of players being able to "market" themselves has gotten a lot of attention in media and here as well, but I don't see any way that it doesn't open up Pandora's box.

Kirk Herbstreit agrees with you

Kirk Herbstreit: Manziel is the "dumbest player to ever play college football" if he sold his autographs

He doesn't want active players to have control of their autograph.

"A recruit could go visit Auburn and they'd say, 'If you sign autographs, we'll get you $5,000 a showing,'" Herbstreit said. "Then Alabama will say, 'Only $5,000? We'll give you $10,000.' It would be crazy to control. It would be the wild, wild West."

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/08/kirk_herbstreit_manziel_is_the.html



A $5K yearly stipend eliminates the concerns over athletes who cannot legally get the sort of job most college students use to cover gas money, pizza slices, or trips to the beach. I'm just a little curious how the NCAA would explain extending this to basketball and football players, but not other student athletes. Someone on one of these threads pointed out the obvious Title IX issues.

The author of an article in today's Wall Street Journal joins with those who speculate tying the payment to the value of the team members' likenesses for sports for which broadcast revenues are generated might address Title IX issues.

Another unknown is the effect of the O'Bannon outcome on Title IX, the federal legislation that mandates equitable treatment between sexes at schools that receive federal funds. One potential way of complying would be to award female athletes an equal percentage of revenue from their TV and licensing revenue, said Linda Carpenter and Vivian Acosta, authors of a book on Title IX.

That remedy would have modest financial effect because athletic-department revenue flows mostly from men's sports.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323446404579010513489442936.html

killerleft
08-14-2013, 04:16 PM
The cleaning staff for the rooms gets paid, the cooks for the board/free food get paid, Nike gets paid for the free shoes/clothes (in advertisment), Apple gets paid, the airlines get paid, the trainers get paid, the coaches get paid. The school's branding and marketing departments get paid, the commentators and sports writers get paid.

The problem here is that schools keep inventing new ways to NOT pay the players but still compensate them somehow. "New facilities" is code for "we have a pile of money to dump into our athletics program, but it can't directly go to athletes; this is just about the only other thing we're allowed to do."

It's clear that there's a two-way relationship, that players benefit above their alternatives by going to college and that colleges benefit from the relationship as well. Colleges benefit far more than the players, mostly because the colleges have rules that control the the players' lives far beyond any other types of students. Athletics is the only field of "study" where the NCAA believes that paid opportunities (or some unpaid ones) are bad for the student outside the University setting, and that's for the school's benefit and not the student athlete's.

There's also no doubt that most of the student/athletes are getting $50,000 or more a year through scholarships and other benefits. What more do they deserve? Somebody can figure it out (I like Jason Evans' thoughts on payment), but the very second individual student/athletes are free to negotiate their own deals with shoe companies, schools and/or boosters, I'm certainly not gonna be a college sports fan anymore. And I bet I'm far, far from being alone. If these guys are gonna be amateur pros, I'd rather watch the professional pros.

That's where the whole deal falls apart, I think. If these players can't be part of a college team, their marketability is zilch unless they can make a pro team. A stipend is fine, individual free-market payments are not. Let the individuals who think they're good enough try the pro route. Even let them come back to college if they can't sign with a pro team.

One of the often-overlooked facts is that the NCAA and/or colleges DO NOT have to abide by any pro league's rules. Let the pros fight the legal battle with players who want to turn pro before the pro leagues' rules presently allow. This is very simple, and takes care of many of the issues currently being discussed.

toooskies
08-14-2013, 10:19 PM
There's also no doubt that most of the student/athletes are getting $50,000 or more a year through scholarships and other benefits. What more do they deserve? Somebody can figure it out (I like Jason Evans' thoughts on payment), but the very second individual student/athletes are free to negotiate their own deals with shoe companies, schools and/or boosters, I'm certainly not gonna be a college sports fan anymore. And I bet I'm far, far from being alone. If these guys are gonna be amateur pros, I'd rather watch the professional pros.

That's where the whole deal falls apart, I think. If these players can't be part of a college team, their marketability is zilch unless they can make a pro team. A stipend is fine, individual free-market payments are not. Let the individuals who think they're good enough try the pro route. Even let them come back to college if they can't sign with a pro team.


Why do you feel that players who are not free to negotiate are more worth watching than those that are? I ask because I don't really understand the definition/principle of amateurism (and Bilas claims it doesn't exist), and why it is a value worth honoring.

Wheat/"/"/"
08-14-2013, 11:39 PM
There's also no doubt that most of the student/athletes are getting $50,000 or more a year through scholarships and other benefits. What more do they deserve?


What more do they deserve?

Whatever someone is willing to pay...or at bare minimum a % agreed upon between player and school of what someone is willing to pay. Somehow the talent will have to be in the compensation mix, or things will implode soon.

I still believe not much will change by allowing compensation to players. Best players will go to the best situations, as they do now.

gep
08-14-2013, 11:59 PM
I've been following this discussion of "paying" athletes rather closely. I think I'm coming down on the side of NOT paying athletes at all... outside of the normal scholarship and whatever is done now.

When they show players coming off the bus to the game, most have rather expensive looking headphones, media players, smartphones, etc. I always wondered where they get the money to buy these stuff. Obviously, some, if not many, families can afford these things for their kids.

So... what to do about this. Well, there's also the discussion that some athletes don't have "extra" money for pizza movies, dates, etc when the families are not "well-to-do". Well... what about a "needs-based" financial aid program for athletes. This could apply to all athletes, both revenue and non-revenue. Have the athletes apply for a "needs-based" stipend for "other" expenses... with requirements, maximums, etc just like any other Federal "needs-based' financial aid.

If very "well-to-do" families can afford to fly around the country watching their star kid play, I just can't agree with paying them any kind of stipend or whatever just because they play in a revenue sport that makes a pile of money. They choose to go a particular school for other than immediate money... they go to win championships, market themselves for the next level, etc.

ChillinDuke
08-15-2013, 12:18 AM
What more do they deserve?

Whatever someone is willing to pay...or at bare minimum a % agreed upon between player and school of what someone is willing to pay. Somehow the talent will have to be in the compensation mix, or things will implode soon.

I still believe not much will change by allowing compensation to players. Best players will go to the best situations, as they do now.

Not picking on you, Wheat. I know that happens a lot around here, so just pre-empting the skittishness up front.

But fine - I'll bite on your perspective. So let's break it down.

"Whatever someone is willing to pay." OK. So let's take Kansas last year. Are we talking what someone is willing to pay to watch Kansas as a team? If so, I am willing to pay. I'll definitely watch a game from my couch, likely in person, and perhaps from my computer as well. So, the short answer is yes I will pay.

Now I'll dive further: individual players. In other words, why am I watching? To see McLemore, Withey, Releford, and Young. Maybe a few others. I am notably NOT watching to see Jamari Traylor, Niko Roberts, Andrew White, or Justin Wesley (among others).

So, now where do we stand? Can the first 4 in my example command some money in your view? What about the second 4? They are all on Kansas, and I admit that I would pay to watch Kansas.

Further, if hypothetically McLemore was not on Kansas and was not playing in college, I would not pay to see him individually. I wouldn't. I wouldn't want to watch a guy I don't really know, who isn't on a college team (which raises questions on his ability, in my eyes; "why didn't he play in college?"), and who isn't as good as an NBA player. Even if he were in a league post-high school but pre-NBA, I'm highly unlikely to pay for that product as a consumer.

So where do you fall in this? Where does anyone else fall? I'd love to hear more takes. I gave you my side. And it basically boils down to if he's not in college, I ain't paying. In other words, the college association really does seem to drive my choice as a consumer to pay for the product.

Does the player deserve a cut of my payment if the college is the driving factor for me? If McLemore didn't go to Kansas, he wouldn't even exist in my consciousness, and I'd substitute to the next guy on the depth chart on their team. Not because I have an interest in the kid's skills but because I have an interest in Kansas as a team.

That's me. Others may be wildly different. But hearing opinions will help to paint a picture regarding the actual value proposition that an individual player has and thus the compensation that he can reasonably command.

As a slight aside, I also concede that I'd pay for Duke gear cuz I love my team. To the extent that that Duke gear is a jersey or something regarding the likeness of a player, I can agree that they should get a cut of that specific money. But that largely gets into the O'Bannon issue in court as we speak.

- Chillin

killerleft
08-15-2013, 12:21 AM
Why do you feel that players who are not free to negotiate are more worth watching than those that are? I ask because I don't really understand the definition/principle of amateurism (and Bilas claims it doesn't exist), and why it is a value worth honoring.

I think you understand amateurism very well, but there are definitions out there if you need help. For our discussion, let's say an amateur would be a student who is participating in a sport for the love of it while he goes through the process of earning a degree. Is a chance to earn that degree not worth honoring? For those students who find this an unfair proposition...

They are certainly free to forego or quit school and negotiate the best deal they can get. They just can't be amateurs anymore. Allowing players to negotiate ends the whole student/athlete concept. I say if they're worth more money than a scholly and change then let them prove it. Let them go pro. I think we'd find that weeding out the people who aren't in school for the education would make for a much more honest atmosphere in college sports.

What do YOU want? College sports that are essentially a lesser brand of professional sports? Why not forget the college version of sports altogether? I would much rather see student/athletes whose collective skill level is a little less than watch college "stars" who are paid what the booster market will bear.

Let's free the poor, underpaid fellows from their chains and get them on that gravy train. Let the pros pay them what they are truly worth.

If your motto is "In Bilas I Trust", more power to you. As for me, I can only echo the great Daffy Duck as he said, "It is to laugh!". Jay Bilas would pay the best athletes to stay in school. In reality they should be earning their money as professionals in a professional league.

killerleft
08-15-2013, 12:40 AM
What more do they deserve?

Whatever someone is willing to pay...or at bare minimum a % agreed upon between player and school of what someone is willing to pay. Somehow the talent will have to be in the compensation mix, or things will implode soon.

I still believe not much will change by allowing compensation to players. Best players will go to the best situations, as they do now.

If all athletes share an equal amount, sure. Work it out. Otherwise, they deserve to turn pro.

tommy
08-15-2013, 01:12 AM
Not picking on you, Wheat. I know that happens a lot around here, so just pre-empting the skittishness up front.

But fine - I'll bite on your perspective. So let's break it down.

"Whatever someone is willing to pay." OK. So let's take Kansas last year. Are we talking what someone is willing to pay to watch Kansas as a team? If so, I am willing to pay. I'll definitely watch a game from my couch, likely in person, and perhaps from my computer as well. So, the short answer is yes I will pay.

Now I'll dive further: individual players. In other words, why am I watching? To see McLemore, Withey, Releford, and Young. Maybe a few others. I am notably NOT watching to see Jamari Traylor, Niko Roberts, Andrew White, or Justin Wesley (among others).

So, now where do we stand? Can the first 4 in my example command some money in your view? What about the second 4? They are all on Kansas, and I admit that I would pay to watch Kansas.

Further, if hypothetically McLemore was not on Kansas and was not playing in college, I would not pay to see him individually. I wouldn't. I wouldn't want to watch a guy I don't really know, who isn't on a college team (which raises questions on his ability, in my eyes; "why didn't he play in college?"), and who isn't as good as an NBA player. Even if he were in a league post-high school but pre-NBA, I'm highly unlikely to pay for that product as a consumer.

So where do you fall in this? Where does anyone else fall? I'd love to hear more takes. I gave you my side. And it basically boils down to if he's not in college, I ain't paying. In other words, the college association really does seem to drive my choice as a consumer to pay for the product.

Does the player deserve a cut of my payment if the college is the driving factor for me? If McLemore didn't go to Kansas, he wouldn't even exist in my consciousness, and I'd substitute to the next guy on the depth chart on their team. Not because I have an interest in the kid's skills but because I have an interest in Kansas as a team.

That's me. Others may be wildly different. But hearing opinions will help to paint a picture regarding the actual value proposition that an individual player has and thus the compensation that he can reasonably command.

As a slight aside, I also concede that I'd pay for Duke gear cuz I love my team. To the extent that that Duke gear is a jersey or something regarding the likeness of a player, I can agree that they should get a cut of that specific money. But that largely gets into the O'Bannon issue in court as we speak.

- Chillin

You've hit on a couple of the key problems with the "pay the players" mantra. Does Alabama's third string offensive guard get paid the same amount as AJ McCarron? If so, I doubt McCarron is going to be real happy about that, and nobody will be surprised if something more than the standard stipend finds its way into McCarron's pocket so he can feel like he's paid in accordance with his relative contribution to the success of the team. And also, if they all get the same amount, how does that fit with the justification for paying players in the first place, that being that they're bringing in so much money to the university that they should get a cut. That 3rd string guard is assuredly not contributing nearly to the same degree as is McCarron to the revenues the football team is generating. So what's the justification for him getting paid the same amount as the star quarterback?

On the other hand, if the guard gets less, how much less? Who decides his "wages" and on what basis are they decided? What if he moves up the depth chart and midway through the season he's now a starter? Does he get a raise? What if a starter gets hurt or for performance reasons finds himself unable to get on the field halfway through the year? Or he becomes a part-time player. Does he get a pay cut? How much? The questions are endless . . .

Also, you are assuredly right that the association with the university is what makes the jerseys and the video game images of interest to consumers and therefore able to be monetized. While it's true that a Duke jersey with number 30 on it in Seth Curry's senior season would sell way more than a Duke number 51 jersey, it is also true that a jersey number 30 with "Curry" on the back, if the jersey was red with white and yellow trim, would sell way less than one in Duke colors.

tommy
08-15-2013, 01:27 AM
Nocilla,

We can argue about whether the things you point out as benefits of playing a big-time collegiate sport are fair compensation for the athletes -- and I can see arguments on both sides of that issue. But there is one thing I feel everyone can agree upon regarding some of the wording in your post...

...They ain't getting nothing FOR FREE!

In fact the athletes work quite hard in high school, during the summer, and once they arrive in school to get the benefits you described. It is not FREE. It is the result of hundreds, no thousands, of hours of training and work. And it is something that results from truly unique skills and abilities -- were I to work as hard as they do at basketball/football/tennis, I would not be nearly the player that they are.

So, all those things you describe, they are most certainly not free. No player gets those things if he chooses to sit on his backside all day watching TV and not attending practices and training sessions.

Put simply -- there is no question that these players are working hard and performing very advanced jobs.

The only question is if the tuition, training, room, board, and so on is adequate payment for the jobs they are performing.

-Jason "agreed?" Evans

It's the "and so on" that sometimes gets brushed under the carpet. As Nocilla and others have pointed out, it's not just tuition, room and board. Which is substantial in and of itself. It's also full meals, several times a day, almost year-round, it's access to full service, pristine gyms, fields, and pools, year-round; it's access -- without payment -- to some of the best doctors and medical facilities in the world, unlimited --put a price on that!!-- it's air travel around the country and indeed around the world; it's staying in very nice-to-plush hotels around the country and the world; it's almost unlimited shoes, shirts, hats, jackets, sweats, socks, and the like; it's access to the best nutritionist and nutritional programs out there; of course the best coaching, both on the field/court and strength and conditioning coaching; as well as the media exposure, the branding, the creation of a public image, and many other things sometimes called "perks."

Heck, what is the average salary of a D-league player? Is it even 6 figures? Those guys are playing higher level basketball than high major college, and making less than the value of what the college players are getting for their work. Add up the tuition, room, board, food, travel, medical, training, PR, and all the other stuff I mentioned, plus a lot I didn't even think of, and if you put a reasonable value on it, it's more than what the higher level basketball players in the D-league are making, I venture to guess.

Dr. Rosenrosen
08-15-2013, 07:26 AM
It's the "and so on" that sometimes gets brushed under the carpet. As Nocilla and others have pointed out, it's not just tuition, room and board. Which is substantial in and of itself. It's also full meals, several times a day, almost year-round, it's access to full service, pristine gyms, fields, and pools, year-round; it's access -- without payment -- to some of the best doctors and medical facilities in the world, unlimited --put a price on that!!-- it's air travel around the country and indeed around the world; it's staying in very nice-to-plush hotels around the country and the world; it's almost unlimited shoes, shirts, hats, jackets, sweats, socks, and the like; it's access to the best nutritionist and nutritional programs out there; of course the best coaching, both on the field/court and strength and conditioning coaching; as well as the media exposure, the branding, the creation of a public image, and many other things sometimes called "perks."

Heck, what is the average salary of a D-league player? Is it even 6 figures? Those guys are playing higher level basketball than high major college, and making less than the value of what the college players are getting for their work. Add up the tuition, room, board, food, travel, medical, training, PR, and all the other stuff I mentioned, plus a lot I didn't even think of, and if you put a reasonable value on it, it's more than what the higher level basketball players in the D-league are making, I venture to guess.
They don't get paid well but do get certaiin similar "perks." You have to scroll down a bit...

http://espn.go.com/nba/dailydime/_/page/dime-121123-24/nba-new-york-knicks-carmelo-anthony-better-ever

Atlanta Duke
08-15-2013, 10:36 AM
That's me. Others may be wildly different. But hearing opinions will help to paint a picture regarding the actual value proposition that an individual player has and thus the compensation that he can reasonably command.

- Chillin

Jerry Seinfeld has a great line in this linked video on Letterman about whether we cheer for the team or the player in team sports

"You're rooting for clothes when you get right down to it ... We're rooting, we're screaming about laundry here."

http://vimeo.com/47283296

Few people are going to watch a game where the college or pro players are not wearing the uniform (clothes) of a team, but without someone to wear the uniform there can be no game. So the question is how to allocate the revenues generated by the game.

Unlike individual sports, such as tennis or golf, where the result is tied solely to individual performance, it is harder to break out the "fair" share of revenue that should go to individual players in a team sport. At the pro level, you have a number of restrictions on how much one player can earn and where he can earn it (draft of players for their first pro team, slotted salaries based on draft position, salary cap in pro sports other than baseball). As the pro player obtains greater seniority in the league, the ability of the player to have greater discretion where he plays and how much he can earn increases. However, nobody questions that the pro players services in team sports have value even though, as Seinfeld notes, the primary loyalty is to the team and not the player. As is stated in the declaration of Roger Noll, plaintiffs' expert in the O'Bannon case, the collective value of those services and the licensing of the players' likenesses for use in broadcasts is set at 55% of broadcast revenue for the NFL. (Noll declaration at p. 103).

http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/.element/img/4.0/global/swapper/201303/130318.03.pdf

In college team sports the consideration the player receives is limited to the scholarship. Unlike pro sports, the player has absolute freedom to select his school. However, the player has no discretion to seek compensation above the scholarship. The issue in the O'Bannon case is whether that limitation upon compensation violates the antitrust laws. The NCAA previously has terminated its agreement with EA Sports to license players images in video games. An article today reports the SEC also has terminated the licensing of its trademark to EA Sports.

If you were potentially thinking this wasn’t about the Ed O’Bannon lawsuit – the looming case against the NCAA and EA Sports that they profited from the likeness of players without proper compensation – check out this part of the release:

"Neither the SEC, its member universities, nor the NCAA have ever licensed the right to use the name or likeness of any student to EA Sports."

Right. Sure. Just a series of really convenient and very profitable coincidences.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/sec-ends-deal-ea-sports-does-mean-155636726.html

These actions by the NCAA and SEC appear to indicate they see trouble ahead on the antitrust liability issue in the O'Bannon case. If there is liability, the question is how to calculate damages to college players arising from that conduct. O'Bannon expert Noll calculates those total damages as a share of broadcast revenue. The subsequent issue is how to slice the pie among the team members. Noll proposes an equal allocation of the share of revenues per to each member. [Noll declaration - pp. 107-108].

http://businessofcollegesports.com/2012/10/31/a-deeper-look-into-the-potential-damages-in-the-obannon-case/

In another post here, equal distribution of a share of revenues to all team members is challenged on the following ground:


Does Alabama's third string offensive guard get paid the same amount as AJ McCarron? If so, I doubt McCarron is going to be real happy about that, and nobody will be surprised if something more than the standard stipend finds its way into McCarron's pocket so he can feel like he's paid in accordance with his relative contribution to the success of the team. And also, if they all get the same amount, how does that fit with the justification for paying players in the first place, that being that they're bringing in so much money to the university that they should get a cut. That 3rd string guard is assuredly not contributing nearly to the same degree as is McCarron to the revenues the football team is generating. So what's the justification for him getting paid the same amount as the star quarterback?

To the extent AJ McCarron is satisfied with getting the same scholarship as the third string guard, I am uncertain why getting an equal share of the gross broadcast revenue allocated to his team would be the flash point for AJ becoming upset. However, to the extent those who on the one hand contend players should receive no compensation above the scholarship also contend it would be inequitable for all revenue sports players to receive an equal payment, payments could be tied to each player's % of total minutes played by the team that year (to the extent that would prompt player discontent about minutes played, players already gripe about that and the coach presumably will still allocate minutes played based upon what it takes to win and keep his job). That would add an element of merit for those concerned about the unbridled egalitarianism of equal distributions to all revenue sports players and would in some ways be equivalent to pro teams allocating revenues with the salary cap in different amounts among players. So FWIW I believe channeling some share of the broadcast revenues to the players is appropriate as a means of providing compensation for their services that are of increasing value as the value of broadcast contracts increase.

I know the NCAA and the colleges say any increased payments will be the death of college sports. For those of us who have been around for a while, the same predictions of doom were made when the owners said establishing a players union and eliminating the reserve clause would be the death of baseball.

tommy
08-15-2013, 12:58 PM
Jerry Seinfeld has a great line in this linked video on Letterman about whether we cheer for the team or the player in team sports

"You're rooting for clothes when you get right down to it ... We're rooting, we're screaming about laundry here."

http://vimeo.com/47283296

Few people are going to watch a game where the college or pro players are not wearing the uniform (clothes) of a team, but without someone to wear the uniform there can be no game. So the question is how to allocate the revenues generated by the game.

Unlike individual sports, such as tennis or golf, where the result is tied solely to individual performance, it is harder to break out the "fair" share of revenue that should go to individual players in a team sport. At the pro level, you have a number of restrictions on how much one player can earn and where he can earn it (draft of players for their first pro team, slotted salaries based on draft position, salary cap in pro sports other than baseball). As the pro player obtains greater seniority in the league, the ability of the player to have greater discretion where he plays and how much he can earn increases. However, nobody questions that the pro players services in team sports have value even though, as Seinfeld notes, the primary loyalty is to the team and not the player. As is stated in the declaration of Roger Noll, plaintiffs' expert in the O'Bannon case, the collective value of those services and the licensing of the players' likenesses for use in broadcasts is set at 55% of broadcast revenue for the NFL. (Noll declaration at p. 103).

http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/.element/img/4.0/global/swapper/201303/130318.03.pdf

In college team sports the consideration the player receives is limited to the scholarship. Unlike pro sports, the player has absolute freedom to select his school. However, the player has no discretion to seek compensation above the scholarship. The issue in the O'Bannon case is whether that limitation upon compensation violates the antitrust laws. The NCAA previously has terminated its agreement with EA Sports to license players images in video games. An article today reports the SEC also has terminated the licensing of its trademark to EA Sports.

If you were potentially thinking this wasn’t about the Ed O’Bannon lawsuit – the looming case against the NCAA and EA Sports that they profited from the likeness of players without proper compensation – check out this part of the release:

"Neither the SEC, its member universities, nor the NCAA have ever licensed the right to use the name or likeness of any student to EA Sports."

Right. Sure. Just a series of really convenient and very profitable coincidences.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/sec-ends-deal-ea-sports-does-mean-155636726.html

These actions by the NCAA and SEC appear to indicate they see trouble ahead on the antitrust liability issue in the O'Bannon case. If there is liability, the question is how to calculate damages to college players arising from that conduct. O'Bannon expert Noll calculates those total damages as a share of broadcast revenue. The subsequent issue is how to slice the pie among the team members. Noll proposes an equal allocation of the share of revenues per to each member. [Noll declaration - pp. 107-108].

http://businessofcollegesports.com/2012/10/31/a-deeper-look-into-the-potential-damages-in-the-obannon-case/

In another post here, equal distribution of a share of revenues to all team members is challenged on the following ground:



To the extent AJ McCarron is satisfied with getting the same scholarship as the third string guard, I am uncertain why getting an equal share of the gross broadcast revenue allocated to his team would be the flash point for AJ becoming upset. However, to the extent those who on the one hand contend players should receive no compensation above the scholarship also contend it would be inequitable for all revenue sports players to receive an equal payment, payments could be tied to each player's % of total minutes played by the team that year (to the extent that would prompt player discontent about minutes played, players already gripe about that and the coach presumably will still allocate minutes played based upon what it takes to win and keep his job). That would add an element of merit for those concerned about the unbridled egalitarianism of equal distributions to all revenue sports players and would in some ways be equivalent to pro teams allocating revenues with the salary cap in different amounts among players. So FWIW I believe channeling some share of the broadcast revenues to the players is appropriate as a means of providing compensation for their services that are of increasing value as the value of broadcast contracts increase.

I know the NCAA and the colleges say any increased payments will be the death of college sports. For those of us who have been around for a while, the same predictions of doom were made when the owners said establishing a players union and eliminating the reserve clause would be the death of baseball.


Thanks for your post and the links contained. Couple of interesting tidbits from the Noll declaration. For one, using his model, the amount of broadcast revenue going to schools in different conferences will vary significantly:

• Per-athlete damages for an SEC football player on a 2009-10 roster vary from $46,627 to $66,610.
• Per-athlete damages for a Pac-10 football player on a 2009-10 roster vary from $26,253 to $44,497.

What about the effect on recruiting of that differential? "Hey, Mr. Stud Football Player, I know it seems like a lot of money that USC and UCLA and Stanford and Cal and Oregon are offering you, that $40,000. Come on down to Tuscaloosa or Athens or Gainesville, though, and we'll put $60,000 in your pocket instead. How does that sound?"

Seems to me that this would really have the ability to disfigure further the recruting playing field.

Then, Noll points out that because of roster sizes, once the pies are split up (assuming they are split up evenly between all players on a given team) basketball players are going to make far more than are football players. In fact, per his calculations,

*Per-athlete damages for an SEC football player on a 2009-10 roster vary from $46,627 to $66,610.* Per-athlete damages for a Pac-10 football player on a 2009-10 roster vary from $26,253 to $44,497.
* Per-athlete damages for an SEC basketball player on a 2009-10 roster vary from $177,860 to $295,475.
* Per-athlete damages for a Pac-10 basketball player on a 2009-10 roster vary from $171,547 to $253,171.

Further, he notes that basketball players even at mid-majors, his example being Bucknell hoops players, would make more than USC football players. That will not sit well with many.

toooskies
08-15-2013, 01:18 PM
I think you understand amateurism very well, but there are definitions out there if you need help. For our discussion, let's say an amateur would be a student who is participating in a sport for the love of it while he goes through the process of earning a degree. Is a chance to earn that degree not worth honoring? For those students who find this an unfair proposition...

They are certainly free to forego or quit school and negotiate the best deal they can get. They just can't be amateurs anymore. Allowing players to negotiate ends the whole student/athlete concept. I say if they're worth more money than a scholly and change then let them prove it. Let them go pro. I think we'd find that weeding out the people who aren't in school for the education would make for a much more honest atmosphere in college sports.

What do YOU want? College sports that are essentially a lesser brand of professional sports? Why not forget the college version of sports altogether? I would much rather see student/athletes whose collective skill level is a little less than watch college "stars" who are paid what the booster market will bear.

Let's free the poor, underpaid fellows from their chains and get them on that gravy train. Let the pros pay them what they are truly worth.

If your motto is "In Bilas I Trust", more power to you. As for me, I can only echo the great Daffy Duck as he said, "It is to laugh!". Jay Bilas would pay the best athletes to stay in school. In reality they should be earning their money as professionals in a professional league.

Based on your definition of "amateur", I'd say (and this is a rough guess) that 80% of the starters on NCAA Tournament teams are probably disqualified. If they could get paid to play somewhere else, without affecting their NBA chances, they'd absolutely take it. And if a college education wasn't included, I don't think they'd mind.

To be good enough to play even NCAA basketball, these men dream about playing in the NBA rather than having a college diploma and winning the NCAA tournament. They all understand that their basketball skill is their meal ticket. For some, they peak in college, and all they get is an education, despite contributing significantly to the billion-dollar industry of college sports. For others, college is just a stop along the way. This can be seen not only in the number of early entrants (always outnumbering the number of NBA draft slots), but also in the players who complete their playing eligibility but still fail to graduate.

From the Duke perspective, we're lucky. We probably see more players who take pride in their NCAA accomplishments than most. And even we get players who are just trying to make it to the NBA (Austin Rivers and Shavlik Randolph being prominent ones). We also see a higher proportion of players who will play professionally, both in the NBA and internationally.

And no, I don't want to see the NCAA as a minor-league NBA. But I do want a system that makes the decision of whether to stay in college or go pro to not be a decision between getting by on almost nothing without being able to do anything about it in his off-hours, or getting paid a $500,000 minimum NBA salary. I don't see the sense in rewarding teams (or conferences) for NCAA tournament wins, when it's the players that actually win the games. And I don't think charging people for autographs or other sponsorships are going to ruin the whole system. It didn't ruin the Olympics.

ChillinDuke
08-15-2013, 01:38 PM
If they could get paid to play somewhere else, without affecting their NBA chances, they'd absolutely take it. And if a college education wasn't included, I don't think they'd mind.

Disagree. They can get paid - overseas or the D-League, heck maybe even the Harlem Globetrotters. But they don't exercise that option. Almost unanimously. So I think your statement that they'd "absolutely take it" is largely off base.


To be good enough to play even NCAA basketball, these men dream about playing in the NBA rather than having a college diploma and winning the NCAA tournament. They all understand that their basketball skill is their meal ticket.

Disagree here again. Some probably dream of playing in the NBA in the logical sense. Many probably dream of it in the actual state of dreaming. But I can't imagine that a Fairfield recruit or a North Dakota recruit or a UNCG recruit legitimately believes he will play in the NBA. I know we make light of these kids' mentality in the recruiting process, but they see the competition, they can look up the rankings, and they know the likelihood of actually making the NBA. C'mon now. I gave up my NBA dreams in 7th grade when I realized I was 5'6" and not as good as some of my peers. You really think most of these kids are hanging onto their dreams 5, 6, or 7 years later? I'm not on board.

- Chillin

Jarhead
08-15-2013, 02:27 PM
This is all so ridiculous. Where is this heading? I'd wager that after a bunch more pages in this thread we'll be debating how much high school athletes should be payed. I can hear it now. Some blogger will be countering with the reasons for a 16 year old to sign with an AAU team so he can make more money while he is making up his mind what pro league in which he'll eventually play. Everybody knows that secondary schools don't have much money. Heck, why should they pay their athletes more than their teachers are making? Also, AAU money comes from rubber shoe makers, and they'll have money to spare. Say goodbye to Friday night lights, folks.

toooskies
08-15-2013, 02:28 PM
Disagree. They can get paid - overseas or the D-League, heck maybe even the Harlem Globetrotters. But they don't exercise that option. Almost unanimously. So I think your statement that they'd "absolutely take it" is largely off base.



Disagree here again. Some probably dream of playing in the NBA in the logical sense. Many probably dream of it in the actual state of dreaming. But I can't imagine that a Fairfield recruit or a North Dakota recruit or a UNCG recruit legitimately believes he will play in the NBA. I know we make light of these kids' mentality in the recruiting process, but they see the competition, they can look up the rankings, and they know the likelihood of actually making the NBA. C'mon now. I gave up my NBA dreams in 7th grade when I realized I was 5'6" and not as good as some of my peers. You really think most of these kids are hanging onto their dreams 5, 6, or 7 years later? I'm not on board.

- Chillin

I'm not sure there's a big market for American players in Europe whose only goal is to return to the US shortly after. Brandon Jennings had success doing that, but he also didn't really work out well for his Italian team, averaging under 6 points a game. And given the NCAA system, it's probably pretty hard to determine whether you have a market internationally without knowing anything about marketing, having only a high school degree and not being able to hire an agent.

I know most of the Fairfield and North Dakota guys aren't dreaming of playing in the NBA (although each have had graduates who have logged minutes in the NBA the past decade). But then again, the only people sponsoring them will be the local coffee shops or car dealerships. Their world isn't going to be impacted by the rules to a degree where it affects competitive balance.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
08-15-2013, 03:28 PM
I'm not sure there's a big market for American players in Europe whose only goal is to return to the US shortly after. Brandon Jennings had success doing that, but he also didn't really work out well for his Italian team, averaging under 6 points a game. And given the NCAA system, it's probably pretty hard to determine whether you have a market internationally without knowing anything about marketing, having only a high school degree and not being able to hire an agent.

Well, one could argue that your lack of experience, college smarts, education, and agent would clearly be directly effecting your marketability. Ergo, if you can't command the pay you thought, then you have over-estimated your market value. I would argue that MANY college players have inflated sense of value. This is why you see far more players declare for the NBA draft than available first round slots.


I know most of the Fairfield and North Dakota guys aren't dreaming of playing in the NBA (although each have had graduates who have logged minutes in the NBA the past decade). But then again, the only people sponsoring them will be the local coffee shops or car dealerships. Their world isn't going to be impacted by the rules to a degree where it affects competitive balance.

This is where I disagree. I think "the world" would be wildly impacted by these proposals to allow players to market themselves. It sounds like a great idea on its surface, but it will simply auction off 18 year old talent to the high bidder. And, in some cases, these bidders will possibly offer even more than the NBA. There are lots of very wealthy basketball fanatics who would eagerly drop six or seven figures to sway potential talent to their school of choice. Fairfield and North Dakota players would be clamoring for a roster spot at the end of the bench for a major college program. Players with a good season under their belt at, say, Davidson would line up for the chance to transfer and cash in.

I agree with the sentiment of many posters here - if the NCAA goes this route, it's going to greatly lessen my interest in college sports in general.

Atlanta Duke
08-15-2013, 04:25 PM
Thanks for your post and the links contained. Couple of interesting tidbits from the Noll declaration. For one, using his model, the amount of broadcast revenue going to schools in different conferences will vary significantly:

• Per-athlete damages for an SEC football player on a 2009-10 roster vary from $46,627 to $66,610.
• Per-athlete damages for a Pac-10 football player on a 2009-10 roster vary from $26,253 to $44,497.

What about the effect on recruiting of that differential? "Hey, Mr. Stud Football Player, I know it seems like a lot of money that USC and UCLA and Stanford and Cal and Oregon are offering you, that $40,000. Come on down to Tuscaloosa or Athens or Gainesville, though, and we'll put $60,000 in your pocket instead. How does that sound?"

Seems to me that this would really have the ability to disfigure further the recruiting playing field.

Then, Noll points out that because of roster sizes, once the pies are split up (assuming they are split up evenly between all players on a given team) basketball players are going to make far more than are football players. In fact, per his calculations,

*Per-athlete damages for an SEC football player on a 2009-10 roster vary from $46,627 to $66,610.* Per-athlete damages for a Pac-10 football player on a 2009-10 roster vary from $26,253 to $44,497.
* Per-athlete damages for an SEC basketball player on a 2009-10 roster vary from $177,860 to $295,475.
* Per-athlete damages for a Pac-10 basketball player on a 2009-10 roster vary from $171,547 to $253,171.

Further, he notes that basketball players even at mid-majors, his example being Bucknell hoops players, would make more than USC football players. That will not sit well with many.

No doubt there are all sorts of problems in a redesign of what college athletes receive.

Another nugget noted in the article is that the share of Pac-12 revenue going to a Stanford football player would be significantly less than the value of a full scholarship to Stanford. Similar issues would arise for Duke and perhaps Northwestern players (the SEC is rolling in so many $$ that for Vanderbilt football players it might be close to a wash).

I suppose the NCAA (or a football organization consisting of the ACC, SEC, Big 12, Big Ten, and Pac-12 if those conferences set up shop for themselves) might be able to argue that even if the current business model does not escape liability under the antitrust statutes it would be permissible to have a uniform amount allocated per player or team for all conferences, even with the disparate values of conference TV contracts, in order to maintain competitive balance.

Of course that assumes competitive balance exists under the current system. With regard to the current system, O'Bannon expert Noll states at p. 91 of his declaration that the disparity in resources available to different colleges already fuels competitive imbalance even though revenue is not shared with the players:

With an unfettered competitive market for coaches and freedom of choice among student-athletes, the expected result is that the colleges with the most revenue will hire the best coaches and build the best facilities, and that as a result they will attract the best student-athletes.

A college football system in which the SEC has won the BCS championship for the past seven years and had 63 players drafted by the NFL this year, twice the number of any other conference, would appear to support Noll's conclusion. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130429/sec-nfl-draft/

Shifting revenue from athletic departments to players arguably would only continue that current competitive imbalance, with the disparate payments going to players in addition to coaches in different conferences. Of course, cynics might say the revenue sharing per player calculated in the Noll affidavit would result in a pay cut for a number of SEC players.:)

As far as football players potentially getting less revenue per player than basketball players, a similar disparity exists at the pro level, and I suppose is a further incentive to play a sport with a lesser risk of incurring long term brain damage.

Wheat/"/"/"
08-15-2013, 06:11 PM
Not picking on you, Wheat. I know that happens a lot around here, so just pre-empting the skittishness up front.

But fine - I'll bite on your perspective. So let's break it down.

"Whatever someone is willing to pay." OK. So let's take Kansas last year. Are we talking what someone is willing to pay to watch Kansas as a team? If so, I am willing to pay. I'll definitely watch a game from my couch, likely in person, and perhaps from my computer as well. So, the short answer is yes I will pay.

Now I'll dive further: individual players. In other words, why am I watching? To see McLemore, Withey, Releford, and Young. Maybe a few others. I am notably NOT watching to see Jamari Traylor, Niko Roberts, Andrew White, or Justin Wesley (among others).

So, now where do we stand? Can the first 4 in my example command some money in your view? What about the second 4? They are all on Kansas, and I admit that I would pay to watch Kansas.

Further, if hypothetically McLemore was not on Kansas and was not playing in college, I would not pay to see him individually. I wouldn't. I wouldn't want to watch a guy I don't really know, who isn't on a college team (which raises questions on his ability, in my eyes; "why didn't he play in college?"), and who isn't as good as an NBA player. Even if he were in a league post-high school but pre-NBA, I'm highly unlikely to pay for that product as a consumer.

So where do you fall in this? Where does anyone else fall? I'd love to hear more takes. I gave you my side. And it basically boils down to if he's not in college, I ain't paying. In other words, the college association really does seem to drive my choice as a consumer to pay for the product.

Does the player deserve a cut of my payment if the college is the driving factor for me? If McLemore didn't go to Kansas, he wouldn't even exist in my consciousness, and I'd substitute to the next guy on the depth chart on their team. Not because I have an interest in the kid's skills but because I have an interest in Kansas as a team.

That's me. Others may be wildly different. But hearing opinions will help to paint a picture regarding the actual value proposition that an individual player has and thus the compensation that he can reasonably command.

As a slight aside, I also concede that I'd pay for Duke gear cuz I love my team. To the extent that that Duke gear is a jersey or something regarding the likeness of a player, I can agree that they should get a cut of that specific money. But that largely gets into the O'Bannon issue in court as we speak.

- Chillin

I'm good, thanks for considering my points.

No-one is equal when it comes to what someone is willing to pay. Its based on market, talent, performance, and that's a moving target.

And like I said earlier, I'm Ok with a school saying we're not giving you any cash, our payment to a player is in the form of the platform provided, the scholarship, room, food, etc...

What's not right to me is saying a player cannot accept outside compensation from, say the local car dealer, who wants to pay a kid for a commercial spot because he's a star, while the school makes millions off a kids talent. (I say kid, but the greater point is they are actually legal adults).

A nightmare to the college game? I just don't see the problem. Schools and the NCAA will have to monitor everything, keep it out in the open, and find ways to regulate the payments. Maybe make rules that make players show service for compensation, so boosters don't just throw money around? Make rules that progress must be made towards graduation to stay eligible. I don't know, it will have to be worked out... Dismiss any player who goes under the table with payments, and violates his contract with the school.

Heck, I think we might be surprised that the schools could even be in a position to require the star players to give them back a % of income in a contract if they want the high profile exposure a major school provides.

Everything would be open to negotiation, and like water seeking its level, we would find the level point with outside compensations and rules pretty quick.

The idea of amateurism is dead at the collage level to me, and has been for a long time.

In my world, Andrew Wiggins might command a shoe deal worth tens of thousands of dollars, but a bench player would have to be happy with his scholarship, or go to a lessor school where he might get something.

The back up 2g might only get free meals at a local restaurant that wants to support the team and have popular players around to boost business. Starters might get a % of jersey sales. Who cares as long as its all out in the open? This is America, nobody is promised anything. They have to produce and negotiate. Some players won't get anything from the outside, some will.

My point is, as long as its all up front, Wiggins should be allowed the compensation a shoe company is willing to give. He's an adult. He has the right to cash in on his talent, especially if Kansas/the NCAA has the right to cash in on his talent.

So, since Kansas is a top school, Kansas could have said to him, "come to Kansas and we'll give you a full ride, and we only want 30% of your outside income while you are in school"

Duke might have said, "come to Duke and play for coach K, we'll give you a full ride and we only want 50% of your outside income".

Davidson might say "come to Davidson and you get a full ride and you keep all your outside income".

Wiggins has a decision to make. Would it be a better deal to go to Duke and play for coach K, get a Duke education but have to pay a little more from his outside income?

Or go to Kansas where he might pay less, but live in the sticks?

Or go to Davidson where he can keep whatever he can get.

It's his choice. It's his talent that got him there, so it's his call.

College ball will still be great, and fair to the players.

sagegrouse
08-15-2013, 06:27 PM
I know a long-time Olympic competitor in Nordic ski events. In his mid-30s now, he won his first World Cup event at age 17. Now, mind you, this is Nordic skiing not the more widely glamorous Alpine events. His sponsorships were such that, at age 18 and still in HS, he bought a townhouse here and moved out of his parents home. Steamboat ain't Aspen in terms of prices, but it isn't Dubuque either.

If US college athletes in football and hoops could get sponsors, the money would be extraordinary. It would go to a lot of players -- kind of like golf -- but the big names would get paid hugely more.

sagegrouse

ChillinDuke
08-15-2013, 11:17 PM
I'm good, thanks for considering my points.

No-one is equal when it comes to what someone is willing to pay. Its based on market, talent, performance, and that's a moving target.

And like I said earlier, I'm Ok with a school saying we're not giving you any cash, our payment to a player is in the form of the platform provided, the scholarship, room, food, etc...

What's not right to me is saying a player cannot accept outside compensation from, say the local car dealer, who wants to pay a kid for a commercial spot because he's a star, while the school makes millions off a kids talent. (I say kid, but the greater point is they are actually legal adults).

A nightmare to the college game? I just don't see the problem. Schools and the NCAA will have to monitor everything, keep it out in the open, and find ways to regulate the payments. Maybe make rules that make players show service for compensation, so boosters don't just throw money around? Make rules that progress must be made towards graduation to stay eligible. I don't know, it will have to be worked out... Dismiss any player who goes under the table with payments, and violates his contract with the school.

Heck, I think we might be surprised that the schools could even be in a position to require the star players to give them back a % of income in a contract if they want the high profile exposure a major school provides.

Everything would be open to negotiation, and like water seeking its level, we would find the level point with outside compensations and rules pretty quick.

The idea of amateurism is dead at the collage level to me, and has been for a long time.

In my world, Andrew Wiggins might command a shoe deal worth tens of thousands of dollars, but a bench player would have to be happy with his scholarship, or go to a lessor school where he might get something.

The back up 2g might only get free meals at a local restaurant that wants to support the team and have popular players around to boost business. Starters might get a % of jersey sales. Who cares as long as its all out in the open? This is America, nobody is promised anything. They have to produce and negotiate. Some players won't get anything from the outside, some will.

My point is, as long as its all up front, Wiggins should be allowed the compensation a shoe company is willing to give. He's an adult. He has the right to cash in on his talent, especially if Kansas/the NCAA has the right to cash in on his talent.

So, since Kansas is a top school, Kansas could have said to him, "come to Kansas and we'll give you a full ride, and we only want 30% of your outside income while you are in school"

Duke might have said, "come to Duke and play for coach K, we'll give you a full ride and we only want 50% of your outside income".

Davidson might say "come to Davidson and you get a full ride and you keep all your outside income".

Wiggins has a decision to make. Would it be a better deal to go to Duke and play for coach K, get a Duke education but have to pay a little more from his outside income?

Or go to Kansas where he might pay less, but live in the sticks?

Or go to Davidson where he can keep whatever he can get.

It's his choice. It's his talent that got him there, so it's his call.

College ball will still be great, and fair to the players.

Very interesting to me. I'll have to ponder this.

Thanks, Wheat.

- Chillin

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
08-16-2013, 04:01 AM
My point is, as long as its all up front, Wiggins should be allowed the compensation a shoe company is willing to give. He's an adult. He has the right to cash in on his talent, especially if Kansas/the NCAA has the right to cash in on his talent.

So, since Kansas is a top school, Kansas could have said to him, "come to Kansas and we'll give you a full ride, and we only want 30% of your outside income while you are in school"

Duke might have said, "come to Duke and play for coach K, we'll give you a full ride and we only want 50% of your outside income".

Davidson might say "come to Davidson and you get a full ride and you keep all your outside income".

Wiggins has a decision to make. Would it be a better deal to go to Duke and play for coach K, get a Duke education but have to pay a little more from his outside income?

Or go to Kansas where he might pay less, but live in the sticks?

Or go to Davidson where he can keep whatever he can get.

It's his choice. It's his talent that got him there, so it's his call.

College ball will still be great, and fair to the players.

Why on earth would Duke even the playing field with Davidson by asking for HALF his earnings? This makes no sense to me in the slightest.

Here's what would happen. Davidson is recruiting a kid, UNC/UCLA/whoever rolls in and offers triple the money and weekly ESPN exposure. Game over.

Allowing this sort of system would destroy "small college ball." The only way around that is to offer equal stipends, which honestly seems to make less and less sense the more I think about it.

Unless the NBA or NFL develops an MLB-style farm league, the NCAA will remain the defacto development program for these sports and the athletes will remain stuck in a hypocritical payment purgatory of "amateurism."

Jesus, when can we start talking about real games again? Longest offseason ever.

NSDukeFan
08-16-2013, 07:06 AM
Why on earth would Duke even the playing field with Davidson by asking for HALF his earnings? This makes no sense to me in the slightest.

Here's what would happen. Davidson is recruiting a kid, UNC/UCLA/whoever rolls in and offers triple the money and weekly ESPN exposure. Game over.

Allowing this sort of system would destroy "small college ball." The only way around that is to offer equal stipends, which honestly seems to make less and less sense the more I think about it.

Unless the NBA or NFL develops an MLB-style farm league, the NCAA will remain the defacto development program for these sports and the athletes will remain stuck in a hypocritical payment purgatory of "amateurism."

Jesus, when can we start talking about real games again? Longest offseason ever.

Last offseason felt longer.

Wheat/"/"/"
08-16-2013, 07:37 AM
Why on earth would Duke even the playing field with Davidson by asking for HALF his earnings? This makes no sense to me in the slightest.

Well... maybe Duke thinks they offer a better option and can convince him it's worth it?

So in this hypothetical, lets say Wiggins comes back to Duke and says "but Davidson is offering to let me keep 100% of my outside income"....Duke could say, " yea, but at Duke you get to play with x x x x and have a great shot at a title, have super exposure, great education, and will play for coach K...we really want you, but we have Semi Ojeleye already sighed, so how about we meet Kansas's offer at 30%...do we have a deal?"

Then at the last minute, Pitino steps in and says "come play for Louisville, you can keep all your outside income".

The value of Wiggins will be found....


Here's what would happen. Davidson is recruiting a kid, UNC/UCLA/whoever rolls in and offers triple the money and weekly ESPN exposure. Game over.


What do you think happens now to the kid that Davidson is recruiting when Duke, UCLA, etc..decides they want him?

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
08-16-2013, 10:21 AM
Well... maybe Duke thinks they offer a better option and can convince him it's worth it?

So in this hypothetical, lets say Wiggins comes back to Duke and says "but Davidson is offering to let me keep 100% of my outside income"....Duke could say, " yea, but at Duke you get to play with x x x x and have a great shot at a title, have super exposure, great education, and will play for coach K...we really want you, but we have Semi Ojeleye already sighed, so how about we meet Kansas's offer at 30%...do we have a deal?"

Then at the last minute, Pitino steps in and says "come play for Louisville, you can keep all your outside income".

The value of Wiggins will be found....



What do you think happens now to the kid that Davidson is recruiting when Duke, UCLA, etc..decides they want him?

I am pulling out of this hypothetical, because I still can't see why Duke would allow Davidson an advantage by not letting whoever keep their income.

My point remains, if players effective auction off their skills to the highest bidder at the college level, the sport is not the same.

I guess I am just like Bilas. I think he system is very flawed, but I don't see any obvious solutions that wouldn't make it worse.

Good luck fixing this one, kids. I am bowing out of this thread and hiding under my bed until midnight madness.

killerleft
08-16-2013, 12:03 PM
I am pulling out of this hypothetical, because I still can't see why Duke would allow Davidson an advantage by not letting whoever keep their income.

My point remains, if players effective auction off their skills to the highest bidder at the college level, the sport is not the same.

I guess I am just like Bilas. I think he system is very flawed, but I don't see any obvious solutions that wouldn't make it worse.

Good luck fixing this one, kids. I am bowing out of this thread and hiding under my bed until midnight madness.

I'll continue reading, but if the fundamental changes that are being discussed on this thread come to pass, the college sports that I've loved following for fifty years, football and basketball, will be effectively dead. Then I will mosey on to the English Premier League, where I can figure out when I think Louis Suarez will next take a bite out of somebody.

toooskies
08-16-2013, 09:43 PM
College athletics are very much not the same as they used to be. The schools at the top of the heap are entirely concerned about revenue, unlike the more modest years past. Schools ran athletic departments at a loss. They played regional competition because they were close, rivalries were important, and facilities were only upgraded because of age. Schedules revolved around the best competition available. Teams bought their own equipment. If you wanted to see a game, you had to attend it.

But their rules have all changed. Schools expect to make money (or at least break even) on their athletic departments. Teams play in tournaments in Hawaii and the Bahamas. Every season schedule revolves around maximizing revenue, and they probably even get a kickback from ESPN for allowing them to announce the scheduling one TV event at a time. Schools literally build new facilities for recruiting, rather than improving their players. Teams get paid by equipment manufacturers to show off their wares. Conferences make billions from TV contracts.

So the rules, if you haven't been paying attention, have clearly changed for the colleges themselves. That is what bothers me-- that schools are free to abandon values and integrity and the amateurism of their programs, but they maintain those rules for the driving forces of their revenue.

Atlanta Duke
08-17-2013, 09:36 AM
So the rules, if you haven't been paying attention, have clearly changed for the colleges themselves. That is what bothers me-- that schools are free to abandon values and integrity and the amateurism of their programs, but they maintain those rules for the driving forces of their revenue.

Agreed

This except from an article in The Wall Street Journal yesterday on how the Penn State football players sought to keep their team together in 2012, after the NCAA authorized all players to transfer immediately, iluustrates how the NCAA's concept of the "student-athlete" is often no more than a cynical pretext perpetuated by that feckless organization to advance its own interests.

How Penn State Football Survived
Egged On by the NCAA, Rival Teams Tried Raiding the 2012 Nittany Lions

But the NCAA sanctions were encouraging "student-athletes" to behave like athlete-students. They were putting the lie to the NCAA's own propaganda, which officially discouraged transfers because "student-athletes" are supposed to pick their schools for the education, not the athletic opportunities....

Not only did it suddenly fall to [Penn State HC] O'Brien, [players] Mauti, Zordich and every Penn State player who stayed to protect their storied program from disintegrating, they could only do so by upholding the very values the NCAA itself could apparently no longer proclaim with a straight face.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323455104579014553720253962.html

I know the Penn State disaster (the University and its football program deserved to get clobbered) is by now a tiresome subject of discussion, but the linked article is a a well written reminder that almost all college players remain among the most admirable participants in a corrupt system.

Des Esseintes
08-17-2013, 12:32 PM
Agreed

This except from an article in The Wall Street Journal yesterday on how the Penn State football players sought to keep their team together in 2012, after the NCAA authorized all players to transfer immediately, iluustrates how the NCAA's concept of the "student-athlete" is often no more than a cynical pretext perpetuated by that feckless organization to advance its own interests.

How Penn State Football Survived
Egged On by the NCAA, Rival Teams Tried Raiding the 2012 Nittany Lions

But the NCAA sanctions were encouraging "student-athletes" to behave like athlete-students. They were putting the lie to the NCAA's own propaganda, which officially discouraged transfers because "student-athletes" are supposed to pick their schools for the education, not the athletic opportunities....

Not only did it suddenly fall to [Penn State HC] O'Brien, [players] Mauti, Zordich and every Penn State player who stayed to protect their storied program from disintegrating, they could only do so by upholding the very values the NCAA itself could apparently no longer proclaim with a straight face.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323455104579014553720253962.html

I know the Penn State disaster (the University and its football program deserved to get clobbered) is by now a tiresome subject of discussion, but the linked article is a a well written reminder that almost all college players remain among the most admirable participants in a corrupt system.

Are you serious? Is that where we are in this thread? Criticizing the NCAA for relaxing transfer restrictions from Penn State?

I can only IMAGINE the rage if the NCAA had handed down its program-destroying sanctions and forced the players to obey the usual transfer rules if they wanted out. Come on, man. What would you have done instead?

Atlanta Duke
08-17-2013, 01:40 PM
Are you serious? Is that where we are in this thread? Criticizing the NCAA for relaxing transfer restrictions from Penn State?

I can only IMAGINE the rage if the NCAA had handed down its program-destroying sanctions and forced the players to obey the usual transfer rules if they wanted out. Come on, man. What would you have done instead?

I cited a link to an article in yesterday's Wall Street Journal and quoted the author's views, which apparently are discussed at length in his upcoming book "in search of the sport's old ideals as it is roiled by money, greed and scandal." Money and greed certainly are pertinent to why the NCAA finds itself in its current predicament with regard to the Big Five football conferences contemplating whether to set off on their own, the O'Bannon litigation, and revenue athletes compensation issues.

Although the mods would legitimately shut me down if I tried to do so, I have no interest in rehashing the Penn State sanctions issue here. There are an extensive number of articles regarding the ad hoc nature of what the NCAA did in response to a horrible event, in contradiction of its own policies and procedures, from writers who, like me, in no manner were defending the abhorrent, criminal actions at Penn State.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/stewart_mandel/07/23/penn-state-ncaa-sanctions/index.html

But making it up as it goes along is pretty much how the NCAA operates. May be a major reason for its current predicament.

Des Esseintes
08-17-2013, 02:51 PM
I cited a link to an article in yesterday's Wall Street Journal and quoted the author's views, which apparently are discussed at length in his upcoming book "in search of the sport's old ideals as it is roiled by money, greed and scandal." Money and greed certainly are pertinent to why the NCAA finds itself in its current predicament with regard to the Big Five football conferences contemplating whether to set off on their own, the O'Bannon litigation, and revenue athletes compensation issues.

Although the mods would legitimately shut me down if I tried to do so, I have no interest in rehashing the Penn State sanctions issue here. There are an extensive number of articles regarding the ad hoc nature of what the NCAA did in response to a horrible event, in contradiction of its own policies and procedures, from writers who, like me, in no manner were defending the abhorrent, criminal actions at Penn State.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/stewart_mandel/07/23/penn-state-ncaa-sanctions/index.html

But making it up as it goes along is pretty much how the NCAA operates. May be a major reason for its current predicament.

Nor do I have any interest in rehashing the sanctions. But, I'm sorry, this is crazy. You've resolutely (and intelligently) argued in this thread that the NCAA should not have the right to deny athletes the chance to make money. But here you're pillorying the organization for making it easier to transfer out of one of if not THE worst scandals in the history of college sports? I can completely understand criticisms of the sanctions, but are you really arguing the athletes should have had LESS freedom in this uniquely horrible situation? There are many venal fools at the NCAA offices, but it's hard not to feel that they could discover a way to cure Lou Gehrig's disease with cartoons and some people would say, "Have you heard the latest from those self-interested retards at the NCAA?"

Atlanta Duke
08-18-2013, 12:11 PM
Nor do I have any interest in rehashing the sanctions. But, I'm sorry, this is crazy. You've resolutely (and intelligently) argued in this thread that the NCAA should not have the right to deny athletes the chance to make money. But here you're pillorying the organization for making it easier to transfer out of one of if not THE worst scandals in the history of college sports? I can completely understand criticisms of the sanctions, but are you really arguing the athletes should have had LESS freedom in this uniquely horrible situation? There are many venal fools at the NCAA offices, but it's hard not to feel that they could discover a way to cure Lou Gehrig's disease with cartoons and some people would say, "Have you heard the latest from those self-interested retards at the NCAA?"

Thanks for the follow-up - I do not want to come across as someone who blames the NCAA for sinking the Titanic and global warming.

In citing to Friday's Wall Street Journal article and then back to the commentary that followed the NCAA imposition of sanctions on Penn State, I was attempting to note the NCAA is selective when it comes to following its own procedures and the weight given by the organization to the student part of "student-athlete." The NCAA is all in when it comes to arguing that the players are students rather than athletes when defending against lawsuits to compensate players. However, under other circumstances the NCAA charts different courses when its comes to the relative importance of athletics and academics as part of the scholarship package. Given the impact on the players as athletes rather than students, the Penn State players were given the opportunity to get out of Dodge immediately once sanctions were imposed. Under other circumstances, players cannot transfer without sitting out a year if a head coach walks away from his contract and potentially impacts the competitiveness of the team as well as the reason a player selected that school. And, with regard to the student part of the package, there is the continuing lack of interest by the NCAA in the academic fraud practiced at UNC, as Stewart Mandel noted in his linked July 2012 article on the Penn State sanctions.

Jay Bilas outing the NCAA on how jerseys are marketed, which kicked off this thread, is just another aspect of that duplicity.

Thanks to everyone for the thoughtful posts in this thread. I will follow the lead of Mountain Devil by giving the topic a rest while enjoying the upcoming football and basketball seasons.

dyedwab
08-21-2013, 01:13 PM
Following is a link to an article by Patrick Hruby about a walk-on for the Richmond basketball team who was ruled ineligible because he started a business while in school and used his own likeness in marketing

http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/57680744/

Many of you will disagree with Hruby's attack's on amateurism, but please don't get derailed by that. The facts of the story suggest, similar to the story of the former marine football player who was ruled ineligible for a year, that the NCAA's interpretation of some of it rules leads it to looking incredibly foolish.

Wheat/"/"/"
08-26-2013, 09:09 AM
3568

Note the "sponsors" of this "event" for a couple of HS kids that are middle of the pack talents. (44th-76th top 100 ESPN).

So Comcast, among others, is sponsoring this?

After a little digging it looks like Nike is ultimately behind it (http://www.expressionselite.com)...

Things are changing fast. Media is so competitive, there are tons of places to get the latest "news" just a click away, and they are all so starved for content that anything they can dream up is fair game for eyeballs these days...the kids are willing, so why not use the HS kids now to create a little more income?

Crazy times....

lotusland
08-27-2013, 07:00 AM
3568

Note the "sponsors" of this "event" for a couple of HS kids that are middle of the pack talents. (44th-76th top 100 ESPN).

So Comcast, among others, is sponsoring this?

After a little digging it looks like Nike is ultimately behind it (http://www.expressionselite.com)...

Things are changing fast. Media is so competitive, there are tons of places to get the latest "news" just a click away, and they are all so starved for content that anything they can dream up is fair game for eyeballs these days...the kids are willing, so why not use the HS kids now to create a little more income?

Crazy times....

First thing I noticed was how they were trying to generate interest in two relatively unknown HS ball players:

What team will they select?
Will they play college basketball together?

Some might say they should be paid for the use of their likeness. I say they got free publicity.

Ichabod Drain
08-27-2013, 08:17 AM
First thing I noticed was how they were trying to generate interest in two relatively unknown HS ball players:

What team will they select?
Will they play college basketball together?

Some might say they should be paid for the use of their likeness. I say they got free publicity.

They're both two of the top 100 HS basketball players in the country. While they may be relatively unknown to you, I'm sure they're well know both on the recruiting circuit and in their home state of Massachusetts. They both have offers from D1 schools including Florida, Cincinnati, UConn, OK State, and NC State among others.