A way NCAA athletes could receive compensation

[g-money]

A buddy of mine and I were drinking a few Lagunitas IPAs recently and came up with an idea about how college athletes could be compensated without completely obviating the current system. The crux of the idea is to allow non-University-affiliated investment firms to make loans to college athletes based on professional earning potential. In the Bay Area where I live, a parallel is venture debt firms which make loans to pre-revenue tech startups.

The loan amounts could be capped to ensure that athletes aren't making multi-million-dollar salaries as students, but in general the goal would be to offer a high enough loan amount to entice athletes with pro potential to stay in school. On the investment firm side, a high interest rate could be used to offset the high risk that an athlete would ultimately not make it to the professional level due to injury or poor performance.

There are commonalities between this idea and what happens already in today's NCAA, e.g. an agent or runner giving a promising athlete money or benefits with the hope of being repaid someday. My contention is that if loans were to be made in an above-board, open-book fashion through legitimate investment firms, a lot of these undercurrents of college sports would disappear - just as bootlegging did when the 21st amendment was passed.

One of the merits of using outside firms to make the loans is that Universities would not end up bidding (or in a bidding war) for athletes. In principle, an athlete's college choice could be completely decoupled from the loan he/she receives.

In short, instead of a student loan, this would be a student-athlete loan.

Feel free to poke holes in our construct! And apologies if the idea already exists. Now, back to that Lagunitas...

[Orange&BlackSheep]

that kids will then be leaving college burdened by these loans with no guarantee that they actually have professional prospects, no? Plus they are kids so can walk away from the contracts fairly readily (lawyers can corrects this if that is wrong). Which would mean that parents would have to co-sign .... it is all getting more complicated sounding and potentially troubling in ways I have mentioned and several I will not bother to (thinking what Kentucky would do with this).

O&BSheep

[sagegrouse]

that kids will then be leaving college burdened by these loans with no guarantee that they actually have professional prospects, no? Plus they are kids so can walk away from the contracts fairly readily (lawyers can corrects this if that is wrong). Which would mean that parents would have to co-sign .... it is all getting more complicated sounding and potentially troubling in ways I have mentioned and several I will not bother to (thinking what Kentucky would do with this).

O&BSheep

I have always assumed that even poor parents of All-American basketball players had no trouble borrowing money from friendly bankers or car dealers to provide wheels and even spending money to their sons. It is a reasonable risk for the lenders and a reflection of economic reality.

And I don't have a problem with it.

sagegrouse

[dukeofcalabash]

They already are paid for their services, if only they could do the necessary school work to graduate! If it's money they want immediately, go get a job like millions of others do every year. If they have the 'foresight' to look and plan ahead a bit then earn that degree by staying in college for 4 years.

[JasonEvans]

Any benefit given to an athlete that is not readily given to all students of the university is an improper benefit in the NCAA's eyes. This plan would unquestionably be an improper benefit. If you get something of value for your athletic skills, the NCAA feels that makes you no longer an amateur. The example you give would certainly fall into the "something of value" category and the NCAA would declare any athletes taking part in it to be ineligible.

Athletes have gotten in trouble for this kind of thing in the past. Agents and runners who loan money to be paid back once the kid is a pro. Car dealers who give cars to kids with the expectation that the car will be paid for once the kid is a pro. It is very commonplace and very much against NCAA rules.

-Jason "sorry, but this dog won't hunt" Evans

[ChillinDuke]

A buddy of mine and I were drinking a few Lagunitas IPAs recently and came up with an idea about how college athletes could be compensated without completely obviating the current system. The crux of the idea is to allow non-University-affiliated investment firms to make loans to college athletes based on professional earning potential. In the Bay Area where I live, a parallel is venture debt firms which make loans to pre-revenue tech startups.

The loan amounts could be capped to ensure that athletes aren't making multi-million-dollar salaries as students, but in general the goal would be to offer a high enough loan amount to entice athletes with pro potential to stay in school. On the investment firm side, a high interest rate could be used to offset the high risk that an athlete would ultimately not make it to the professional level due to injury or poor performance.

There are commonalities between this idea and what happens already in today's NCAA, e.g. an agent or runner giving a promising athlete money or benefits with the hope of being repaid someday. My contention is that if loans were to be made in an above-board, open-book fashion through legitimate investment firms, a lot of these undercurrents of college sports would disappear - just as bootlegging did when the 21st amendment was passed.

One of the merits of using outside firms to make the loans is that Universities would not end up bidding (or in a bidding war) for athletes. In principle, an athlete's college choice could be completely decoupled from the loan he/she receives.

In short, instead of a student loan, this would be a student-athlete loan.

Feel free to poke holes in our construct! And apologies if the idea already exists. Now, back to that Lagunitas...

I'm going to let it marinate a bit and listen to some other viewpoints, but at first blush it doesn't seem to be off the reservation. I kind of like the idea of this stuff being above board - especially since the school could help the kid make an informed decision about what is reasonable to borrow without actually getting into a bidding war.

I do think this would tend to benefit a school like us where median incomes post-grad are higher than other schools thus making any investment in a student-athlete comparatively safer. I'm speaking in general here.

Interesting idea. Thanks for sharing!

Now if only you'd share some of the Lagunitas...

- Chillin

[mattman91]

A buddy of mine and I were drinking a few Lagunitas IPAs recently and came up with an idea about how college athletes could be compensated without completely obviating the current system. The crux of the idea is to allow non-University-affiliated investment firms to make loans to college athletes based on professional earning potential. In the Bay Area where I live, a parallel is venture debt firms which make loans to pre-revenue tech startups.

The loan amounts could be capped to ensure that athletes aren't making multi-million-dollar salaries as students, but in general the goal would be to offer a high enough loan amount to entice athletes with pro potential to stay in school. On the investment firm side, a high interest rate could be used to offset the high risk that an athlete would ultimately not make it to the professional level due to injury or poor performance.

There are commonalities between this idea and what happens already in today's NCAA, e.g. an agent or runner giving a promising athlete money or benefits with the hope of being repaid someday. My contention is that if loans were to be made in an above-board, open-book fashion through legitimate investment firms, a lot of these undercurrents of college sports would disappear - just as bootlegging did when the 21st amendment was passed.

One of the merits of using outside firms to make the loans is that Universities would not end up bidding (or in a bidding war) for athletes. In principle, an athlete's college choice could be completely decoupled from the loan he/she receives.

In short, instead of a student loan, this would be a student-athlete loan.

Feel free to poke holes in our construct! And apologies if the idea already exists. Now, back to that Lagunitas...

You have good taste...you should roam over to the ymmm beer thread sometime :D

[g-money]

Any benefit given to an athlete that is not readily given to all students of the university is an improper benefit in the NCAA's eyes. This plan would unquestionably be an improper benefit. If you get something of value for your athletic skills, the NCAA feels that makes you no longer an amateur. The example you give would certainly fall into the "something of value" category and the NCAA would declare any athletes taking part in it to be ineligible.

Athletes have gotten in trouble for this kind of thing in the past. Agents and runners who loan money to be paid back once the kid is a pro. Car dealers who give cars to kids with the expectation that the car will be paid for once the kid is a pro. It is very commonplace and very much against NCAA rules.

-Jason "sorry, but this dog won't hunt" Evans


that kids will then be leaving college burdened by these loans with no guarantee that they actually have professional prospects, no? Plus they are kids so can walk away from the contracts fairly readily (lawyers can corrects this if that is wrong). Which would mean that parents would have to co-sign .... it is all getting more complicated sounding and potentially troubling in ways I have mentioned and several I will not bother to (thinking what Kentucky would do with this).

O&BSheep

Hey folks, a couple of clarifications. To Jason's point, the current NCAA system would certainly have to be revamped for this idea to work. (This probably was not clear from the OP - what I meant to say is that the NCAA could stay intact in some form, but not the same form it is now.) Changes to the NCAA seem to be coming down the pipe already, so maybe there's a chance to inch forward on this front. Whether Title IX and other legal aspects might enter in to the selective payment of athletes is admittedly another question, however.

To O&BSheep's point, the idea I have in mind is that only the athletes that earn a pro contract (above a certain size) would actually be on the hook for repaying the loan. To make the dollars and cents work out, the investment firms would need to be pretty selective about who they make loans to and how much they loan, but in theory this should be feasible if the investors are savvy enough. I guess you could think of the loan as an advance on a pro contract, with an interest rate set to account for the risk of said pro contract not being earned.

Anyway, this is just some food for thought. It may be a bit too disruptive an idea based on where the NCAA is now, but I think it would be a win-win for the athletes and Universities to set something up along these lines. It would essentially be a highly regulated market for compensating student-athletes with pro potential.

On a lighter note - Mattman91, I will be checking out the beer thread shortly!

[bob blue devil]

that kids will then be leaving college burdened by these loans with no guarantee that they actually have professional prospects, no? Plus they are kids so can walk away from the contracts fairly readily (lawyers can corrects this if that is wrong). Which would mean that parents would have to co-sign .... it is all getting more complicated sounding and potentially troubling in ways I have mentioned and several I will not bother to (thinking what Kentucky would do with this).

O&BSheep

Why not structure it as equity instead? Then the 'burden' is 100% tied to income. Heck, stick them on Fantex with Arian Foster! If you think straight equity is still too burdensome (say they wind up pumping gas), structure it as an option - only income over a certain level pays the writer of the premium.

No, this will never happen. Neat idea, though.

[lotusland]

Would Fats' company qualify as a non university affiliated investment firm? I think another term for those firms would be agents and boosters and another term for those loans would be gifts. Seems like regulating investment firms that the NCAA has no authority over would be beyond their capability.

[cspan37421]

Any benefit given to an athlete that is not readily given to all students of the university is an improper benefit in the NCAA's eyes. This plan would unquestionably be an improper benefit. If you get something of value for your athletic skills, the NCAA feels that makes you no longer an amateur. The example you give would certainly fall into the "something of value" category and the NCAA would declare any athletes taking part in it to be ineligible.

Why doesn't the IRS look at secretive, impermissible benefits (certainly cash, but other stuff "in kind" as well), as income on which the athlete has not paid taxes? Why isn't all this tax evasion, and thus a very serious thing? Seems like the NCAA is very choosy in picking its fights (no doubt because of conflict of interest ... e.g., UNC vs. Cleveland State and all that), but if players are getting paid under the table, why aren't they being arrested for tax evasion? If the IRS took it seriously too, perhaps there would be a serious sentinel effect.

just wondering ... I probably missed something but I can't think of it ....

[-jk]

I can't think of any way to keep a Pickens or a Knight from completely destroying any free market attempt to provide cash to players. When you routinely toss around kajillions (technical term), you can afford to throw around millions for your amusement. Hell, they already do. There would never be anything even vaguely approaching a level playing field.

And I readily admit the field isn't completely level now, but I've watched Duke from the Bubas era on. As much a we're up now, we've been down. It's never quite level, and it changes.

(Hmm... Where did Larry Ellison go to school? He's good at throwing kajillions around. Any way we can get him as a sugar daddy in this model?)

-jk

[Zeke]

1) Allow athletes to go pro out of high school - just like any job.
2)Universities should do away with "revenue sports", but franchise out their name and lease the facilities to an owner who would hire their team.
3) Players who could not make the "Big Show" would be able to be paid, practice year round and 24 hours a day if desired, and not be constrained by going to whatever passes for classes at their institutions. Players who wanted to attend the school would go through the regular admission process and be treated like any other student.
4)The schools would not be liable for injuries from the players, which might become a more significant thing as concussion related suits grow.
5) In short it would recognize that schools are now functioning as minor leagues for the NFL and NBA. This would just formalize that relationship and get rid of the hypocrisy that is college athletics and the NCAA.

[sagegrouse]

(Hmm... Where did Larry Ellison go to school? He's good at throwing kajillions around. Any way we can get him as a sugar daddy in this model?)

-jk

The accepted educational route for becoming a Silicon Valley or Microsoft billionaire: he dropped out. Went two years to Illinois, leaving before exams after his adoptive mother died, and later one semester to the U. of Chicago. He permanently moved to N. California at age 22.

sagegrouse

[g-money]

I can't think of any way to keep a Pickens or a Knight from completely destroying any free market attempt to provide cash to players. When you routinely toss around kajillions (technical term), you can afford to throw around millions for your amusement. Hell, they already do. There would never be anything even vaguely approaching a level playing field.

And I readily admit the field isn't completely level now, but I've watched Duke from the Bubas era on. As much a we're up now, we've been down. It's never quite level, and it changes.

(Hmm... Where did Larry Ellison go to school? He's good at throwing kajillions around. Any way we can get him as a sugar daddy in this model?)

-jk

Yes, I can see your point: preventing university-affiliated booster money from contaminating the "outside" investment funds would be a significant challenge. However, I tend to think that if the system was open book (e.g. the NCAA could serve as an accreditor for the investment firms and set rules for what the LPs of each firm can contribute), it would be easier to regulate and monitor than the system we have now. An additional benefit would be that by keeping the universities out of the investment firms, the universities would not face the financial burden of paying the athletes.

I keep coming back to the Prohibition example: It is very difficult to eliminate a market for something that is highly desired, but it is possible to regulate that market. If the NCAA became the overseer of a regulated market for compensating athletes, it might have an easier time than trying to hunt down "moonshine" operators like Fats...

That said, I'll admit that bobbluedevil is probably right - while this is a great idea to ruminate about over a few beers, it won't happen during our lifetimes. It's too far out of left field (or the left coast perhaps).

[gep]

1) Allow athletes to go pro out of high school - just like any job.

Just to repeat what's been posted may times before... NO athlete is *prevented* from going "pro" out of high school in whatever endeavor the decide...

[Wander]

1) Allow athletes to go pro out of high school - just like any job.


What? There are thousands upon thousands of jobs the require post-high school degrees.

[Jarhead]

What? There are thousands upon thousands of jobs the require post-high school degrees.

Yeah, that's right, and that gives me an idea. Let's just make it so that every professional sports league or association require a college completion certificate or degree in order for athletes to participate. What's wrong with that? Be prepared to support your answer.http://crazietalk.net/ourhouse/images/smilies/111.gif

[mattman91]

Yeah, that's right, and that gives me an idea. Let's just make it so that every professional sports league or association require a college completion certificate or degree in order for athletes to participate. What's wrong with that? Be prepared to support your answer.http://crazietalk.net/ourhouse/images/smilies/111.gif

I understand the idea, but how does this help the league(s)? You don't need a degree or certificate to catch a ball, run, or jump. There are plenty of athletes that have learning disabilities that would be disqualified because of that, and to me that is not fair at all. In the "real world", there are many candidates that get turned down from positions because they don't have a degree, when in reality they are the best candidates for the job.

That being said, I wouldn't go to a doctor who dropped out of college...but I would definitely pay to watch a high school drop out play a sport that they are good at.

[Zeke]

Just to repeat what's been posted may times before... NO athlete is *prevented* from going "pro" out of high school in whatever endeavor the decide...

Tell that to SC lineman Jadovian Clowney
By the way - I think coach K. Thinks the same way. Why do you think there are 1 and done's?

[Jarhead]

I understand the idea, but how does this help the league(s)? You don't need a degree or certificate to catch a ball, run, or jump. There are plenty of athletes that have learning disabilities that would be disqualified because of that, and to me that is not fair at all. In the "real world", there are many candidates that get turned down from positions because they don't have a degree, when in reality they are the best candidates for the job.

That being said, I wouldn't go to a doctor who dropped out of college...but I would definitely pay to watch a high school drop out play a sport that they are good at.

Basically my statement was an attempt at subtle criticism of the some of the ideas popular in this thread. The system we have now has been working for years, and only minor changes are really needed. Handouts and loans could really damage the whole system. Just imagine Ole' Mr. Moneybags getting in the college athletic loans business. He would simply have too much control over the recruiting process, and everything else.

[Zeke]

What? There are thousands upon thousands of jobs the require post-high school degrees.

You are absolutely correct. Goes to show one should be very careful when using absolutes. Can we agree on MOST JOBS?

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

You are absolutely correct. Goes to show one should be very careful when using absolutes. Can we agree on MOST JOBS?

Can we go ahead and nip this in the bud? We have had lots of these threads, and a common fallacy that keeps coming up is that the NCAA has - in any way - a say in the one and done, two and done, four and out scenarios. These are NBA rules that are in place to benefit the NBA.

Any NCAA reform that has any piece of it that involves rules about when you can go to the NBA can be immediately discarded. The NBA will always work in their best interest. Do you know why the "one and done" rule was put into place? It wasn't in order to make sure kids got one year of college under their belts to get them exposure to college life and make them better citizens. It's because teams kept getting burned by drafting unproven high school kids who were total busts. By watching them play against real competition for a year, the chances of wasting high picks on kids who will never crack a starting roster goes down substantially.

The NCAA can make any rule changes it wants to, but if it steps on the toes of the NBA, it will prove to be a mistake, I assure you.

Go Duke!

[Jarhead]

Can we go ahead and nip this in the bud? We have had lots of these threads, and a common fallacy that keeps coming up is that the NCAA has - in any way - a say in the one and done, two and done, four and out scenarios. These are NBA rules that are in place to benefit the NBA.

Any NCAA reform that has any piece of it that involves rules about when you can go to the NBA can be immediately discarded. The NBA will always work in their best interest. Do you know why the "one and done" rule was put into place? It wasn't in order to make sure kids got one year of college under their belts to get them exposure to college life and make them better citizens. It's because teams kept getting burned by drafting unproven high school kids who were total busts. By watching them play against real competition for a year, the chances of wasting high picks on kids who will never crack a starting roster goes down substantially.

The NCAA can make any rule changes it wants to, but if it steps on the toes of the NBA, it will prove to be a mistake, I assure you.

Go Duke!

Thanks for reminding us. There are so many angles in all of this that it is really hard to comprehend. Also, the problems can be different from one sport to another. For example the NFL draft rules are based on age which generally means that a college player is not eligible for the draft until completion of his junior year of college eligibility. NBA rules are similar, but the effect is college players are eligible after one year. I believe that the collective bargaining agreement in both sports is a major factor in this. The NCAA is not involved in this at all. As it stands, with all of these angles that cover everything from athletic scholarships to zealous fans, we are in a geometric maze that greatly hinders any solution. The one who gives us that solution will be a national hero.

[Zeke]

Can we go ahead and nip this in the bud? We have had lots of these threads, and a common fallacy that keeps coming up is that the NCAA has - in any way - a say in the one and done, two and done, four and out scenarios. These are NBA rules that are in place to benefit the NBA.

Any NCAA reform that has any piece of it that involves rules about when you can go to the NBA can be immediately discarded. The NBA will always work in their best interest. Do you know why the "one and done" rule was put into place? It wasn't in order to make sure kids got one year of college under their belts to get them exposure to college life and make them better citizens. It's because teams kept getting burned by drafting unproven high school kids who were total busts. By watching them play against real competition for a year, the chances of wasting high picks on kids who will never crack a starting roster goes down substantially.

The NCAA can make any rule changes it wants to, but if it steps on the toes of the NBA, it will prove to be a mistake, I assure you.

Go Duke!

Mountin Devil: I didn't say it was the NCAA's resposibility. It is the NBA and NFL. Professional baseball and professional golf accept players after high school (or earlier) with no problem if they are good enough. They however have an extensive "minor league" the the NFL and NBA have paid only lip service to. It is definitely not the NCAA's responsibility, however more than a few players have absolutely no interest in an academic pursuit, but are putting in time till they can get to the pros - they should just be able to earn a living at what they are good at.

[Jarhead]

Mountin Devil: I didn't say it was the NCAA's resposibility. It is the NBA and NFL. Professional baseball and professional golf accept players after high school (or earlier) with no problem if they are good enough. They however have an extensive "minor league" the the NFL and NBA have paid only lip service to. It is definitely not the NCAA's responsibility, however more than a few players have absolutely no interest in an academic pursuit, but are putting in time till they can get to the pros - they should just be able to earn a living at what they are good at.
Bringing up baseball and golf just gets us to more of the angles. Baseball has a different set of draft rules (http://www.mlb.com/mlb/draftday/rules.jsp), so does hockey. Baseball seems to just go ahead and draft young players that fit in an eligible status, and then notify the player that he has been drafted. He either accepts it, or ignores it. If and when he chooses to play for a college team, including junior colleges, he is then dropped from the draft list until he meets a new set of eligibility rules. Hockey is similar, I believe. For golf, an amateur just simply declares himself as a pro, but must get through qualifying school before he can get on a particular tour. I don't think the NCAA gets very interested in any of these processes. Yet, the angles all still remain. Another tricky angle would be the AAU. Who knows for sure about that crowd?

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Mountin Devil: I didn't say it was the NCAA's resposibility. It is the NBA and NFL. Professional baseball and professional golf accept players after high school (or earlier) with no problem if they are good enough. They however have an extensive "minor league" the the NFL and NBA have paid only lip service to. It is definitely not the NCAA's responsibility, however more than a few players have absolutely no interest in an academic pursuit, but are putting in time till they can get to the pros - they should just be able to earn a living at what they are good at.

Apologies - I wasn't meaning to imply that I was directly responding to you, but rather to where that line of thought goes. We can whine and moan about the NCAA and their stupid rules all we want to, but if we want any change in letting kids go from high school to the pros, it's an entirely different conversation about the NBA.

[Zeke]

Any questions as to why we might want to consider athletes as probably not STUDENT-ATHLETES:



1.
Chicago Cubs outfielder Andre Dawson on being a role model: "I wan' all
dem kids to do what I do, to look up to me. I wan' all the kids to
copulate me


2. New
Orleans Saint RB George Rogers when asked about the upcoming season: "I
want to rush for 1,000 or 1,500 yards, whichever comes first.



3. And,
upon hearing Joe Jacobi of the 'Skin's say: "I'd run over my own mother to
win the Super Bowl, "Matt Millen of the Raiders said: "To win, I'd run
over Joe's Mom, too."


4.
Torrin Polk, University of Houston receiver, on his coach, John
Jenkins: "He treat us like mens. He let us wear
earrings."


5.
Football commentator and former player Joe Theismann: "Nobody in football
should be called a genius. A genius is a guy like Norman Einstein."



6.
Senior basketball player at the University of Pittsburgh :"I'm going to graduate on
time, no matter how long it takes.."(Now that is beautiful)



7.
Bill Peterson, a Florida State football coach: "You guys line
up alphabetically by height."And,
"You guys pair up in groups of three, and then line up in a circle."



8.
Boxing promoter Dan Duva on Mike Tyson going to
prison: "Why would anyone expect him to come out smarter? He went to
prison for three years, not Princeton .."


9. Stu
Grimson, Chicago Blackhawks left wing, explaining why he keeps a color
photo of himself above his locker: "That's so when I forget how to spell
my name, I can still find my clothes."


10..
Lou Duva, veteran boxing trainer, on the Spartan training regimen of
heavyweight Andrew Golota: "He's a guy who gets up at six o'clock in the
morning, regardless of what time it is."


11..
Chuck Nevitt , North Carolina State basketball player, explaining
to Coach Jim Valvano why he appeared nervous at practice: "My sister's
expecting a baby, and I don't know if I'm going to be an uncle or an aunt.
(I wonder if his IQ ever hit room temperature in January)



12..
Frank Layden, Utah Jazz president, on a former player: "I asked him, 'Son,
what is it with you? Is it ignorance or apathy?'He said, 'Coach, I don't
know and I don't care.''


13..
Shelby Metcalf, basketball coach at Texas A&M, recounting what he told
a player who received four F's and one D: "Son, looks to me like you're
spending too much time on one subject."


14.. In
the words of NC State great Charles Shackelford: "I can go to my left or
right, I am amphibious."



Ah,
but they ride to the bank in a
Bentley.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Any questions as to why we might want to consider athletes as probably not STUDENT-ATHLETES:....

[potentially offensive text redacted]

Ah,
but they ride to the bank in a
Bentley.

I'm sorry, I assumed you were advocating something in particular. Please, I'm curious now as to what your point is. Are you suggesting that these athletes don't have the world's best grammar? That isn't shocking news. Do you feel that they should spend time in school to hone their language skills? I seriously doubt that it effects their production in the workplace - if that workplace is the NBA.

This strikes me as mean-spirited. I'm not sure what the relevance is to the idea of compensating NCAA athletes. Again, I will repeat from your "Point 1" earlier in the thread that the NCAA has no bearing whatsoever on the students going pro after high school. If your quotes were intended to illustrate the degree to which athletes ought to stay in school, it's scattershot at best. If it was supposed to be humor, I guess I'm humorless.

Go Duke!

[SupaDave]

Can we go ahead and nip this in the bud? We have had lots of these threads, and a common fallacy that keeps coming up is that the NCAA has - in any way - a say in the one and done, two and done, four and out scenarios. These are NBA rules that are in place to benefit the NBA.

Any NCAA reform that has any piece of it that involves rules about when you can go to the NBA can be immediately discarded. The NBA will always work in their best interest. Do you know why the "one and done" rule was put into place? It wasn't in order to make sure kids got one year of college under their belts to get them exposure to college life and make them better citizens. It's because teams kept getting burned by drafting unproven high school kids who were total busts. By watching them play against real competition for a year, the chances of wasting high picks on kids who will never crack a starting roster goes down substantially.

The NCAA can make any rule changes it wants to, but if it steps on the toes of the NBA, it will prove to be a mistake, I assure you.

Go Duke!

I ALMOST agree with you here but these kids don't HAVE to go to college - this is where I disagree. Stern championed "Article X" of the NBA's 2005 Collective Bargaining Agreement, a provision that required all potential NBA draftees to be at least 19 years old and one year removed from their high school graduation - this is what's known as the one and done rule. The one and done is for many reasons but mostly b/c of age and spectacular flame outs. The NBA wanted no more Leon Smiths or Kwames who didn't know how to do their own laundry. It's a man's game and obviously you need to have some level of independence when stepping into the working world. Some player's parents STILL go with them to the NBA (and other pro leagues) and still live with their CHILD.

As far as being concerned with the level of education - there are PLENTY of athletes who leave early and finish their degrees especially now with on-line learning but I dare you to tell me that Kobe, Garnett or Lebron needed college. I'm sure Kevin Durant loved his year of college because it was like a freaking vacation for him - but he's unicorn status with Carmelo (and perhaps our own Jabari but we may get him longer than you think). After personally watching Andrew Wiggins walk around KU's campus for a couple days and get asked for autographs by his classmates on the way to class, I can tell you that it's not always the best fit for some kids. Wiggins is friendly but he could certainly do without it. The kid walks around by himself. Everyone knows it's a pit stop for him - but hey, that's life as a future pro who could be making 4.3 milly right NOW. Meanwhile, Nerlins Noel probably lost a few dollars having to chill at UK for a year.

But back to the my original point, you are partially right but the NBA still regularly drafts unproven teens from overseas but they get the advantage of seeing them compete in PRO leagues before drafting them most times. With the international tourneys and the AAU circuit nowadays, the good ole US of A isn't that far behind. The NCAA doesn't have much say so in AAU except when it comes to player benefits.

Lastly, these kids CAN usurp the college route and a SMALL few have done so successfully even while admitting that it was extremely challenging. But Brandon Jennings would like you to know he's in the NBA now and doing very well. But truth be told, it's just so much easier to suck it up and major in basket weaving for a year while chilling on someone else's dime.

The NCAA just reaps all the benefits but doesn't want to put out - and somehow they should - the schools get paid for bowls/tourneys and for the games the players get a bunch of trinkets worth thousands that many turn around and sell. Might as well give them the cash.

[Indoor66]

I ALMOST agree with you here but these kids don't HAVE to go to college - this is where I disagree. Stern championed "Article X" of the NBA's 2005 Collective Bargaining Agreement, a provision that required all potential NBA draftees to be at least 19 years old and one year removed from their high school graduation - this is what's known as the one and done rule. The one and done is for many reasons but mostly b/c of age and spectacular flame outs. The NBA wanted no more Leon Smiths or Kwames who didn't know how to do their own laundry. It's a man's game and obviously you need to have some level of independence when stepping into the working world. Some player's parents STILL go with them to the NBA (and other pro leagues) and still live with their CHILD.

As far as being concerned with the level of education - there are PLENTY of athletes who leave early and finish their degrees especially now with on-line learning but I dare you to tell me that Kobe, Garnett or Lebron needed college. I'm sure Kevin Durant loved his year of college because it was like a freaking vacation for him - but he's unicorn status with Carmelo (and perhaps our own Jabari but we may get him longer than you think). After personally watching Andrew Wiggins walk around KU's campus for a couple days and get asked for autographs by his classmates on the way to class, I can tell you that it's not always the best fit for some kids. Wiggins is friendly but he could certainly do without it. The kid walks around by himself. Everyone knows it's a pit stop for him - but hey, that's life as a future pro who could be making 4.3 milly right NOW. Meanwhile, Nerlins Noel probably lost a few dollars having to chill at UK for a year.

But back to the my original point, you are partially right but the NBA still regularly drafts unproven teens from overseas but they get the advantage of seeing them compete in PRO leagues before drafting them most times. With the international tourneys and the AAU circuit nowadays, the good ole US of A isn't that far behind. The NCAA doesn't have much say so in AAU except when it comes to player benefits.

Lastly, these kids CAN usurp the college route and a SMALL few have done so successfully even while admitting that it was extremely challenging. But Brandon Jennings would like you to know he's in the NBA now and doing very well. But truth be told, it's just so much easier to suck it up and major in basket weaving for a year while chilling on someone else's dime.

The NCAA just reaps all the benefits but doesn't want to put out - and somehow they should - the schools get paid for bowls/tourneys and for the games the players get a bunch of trinkets worth thousands that many turn around and sell. Might as well give them the cash.

You still beg the critical question: Which kids get the cash? They do not all have equal value, yet the superstar needs the supporting cast in a five or eleven man game. What does #5 get vs #1?

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I ALMOST agree with you here but these kids don't HAVE to go to college - this is where I disagree. Stern championed "Article X" of the NBA's 2005 Collective Bargaining Agreement, a provision that required all potential NBA draftees to be at least 19 years old and one year removed from their high school graduation - this is what's known as the one and done rule. The one and done is for many reasons but mostly b/c of age and spectacular flame outs. The NBA wanted no more Leon Smiths or Kwames who didn't know how to do their own laundry. It's a man's game and obviously you need to have some level of independence when stepping into the working world. Some player's parents STILL go with them to the NBA (and other pro leagues) and still live with their CHILD.

As far as being concerned with the level of education - there are PLENTY of athletes who leave early and finish their degrees especially now with on-line learning but I dare you to tell me that Kobe, Garnett or Lebron needed college. I'm sure Kevin Durant loved his year of college because it was like a freaking vacation for him - but he's unicorn status with Carmelo (and perhaps our own Jabari but we may get him longer than you think). After personally watching Andrew Wiggins walk around KU's campus for a couple days and get asked for autographs by his classmates on the way to class, I can tell you that it's not always the best fit for some kids. Wiggins is friendly but he could certainly do without it. The kid walks around by himself. Everyone knows it's a pit stop for him - but hey, that's life as a future pro who could be making 4.3 milly right NOW. Meanwhile, Nerlins Noel probably lost a few dollars having to chill at UK for a year.

But back to the my original point, you are partially right but the NBA still regularly drafts unproven teens from overseas but they get the advantage of seeing them compete in PRO leagues before drafting them most times. With the international tourneys and the AAU circuit nowadays, the good ole US of A isn't that far behind. The NCAA doesn't have much say so in AAU except when it comes to player benefits.

Lastly, these kids CAN usurp the college route and a SMALL few have done so successfully even while admitting that it was extremely challenging. But Brandon Jennings would like you to know he's in the NBA now and doing very well. But truth be told, it's just so much easier to suck it up and major in basket weaving for a year while chilling on someone else's dime.

The NCAA just reaps all the benefits but doesn't want to put out - and somehow they should - the schools get paid for bowls/tourneys and for the games the players get a bunch of trinkets worth thousands that many turn around and sell. Might as well give them the cash.

My point isn't that the one and done rule has completely ended all flame-outs or that college is the only option for an 18 year old basketball player. My point is - and only is - that the one and done rule has zero relevance in the discussion over NCAA rules or the potential payment of players. It isn't an NCAA rule, it isn't an NBA rule intended to benefit college basketball, and it isn't an NBA rule intended to benefit the players. It's an NBA rule that protects NBA teams. I seem to keep running into people online who think that somehow the NCAA has some say in this and they truly don't.

If you feel that kids should be able to go pro out of high school in their profession of choice, that's fine. But your issue isn't with the NCAA. Therefore, I don't see that it the rule has any bearing on the potential payment of players either.

Go Duke!

[lotusland]

My point isn't that the one and done rule has completely ended all flame-outs or that college is the only option for an 18 year old basketball player. My point is - and only is - that the one and done rule has zero relevance in the discussion over NCAA rules or the potential payment of players. It isn't an NCAA rule, it isn't an NBA rule intended to benefit college basketball, and it isn't an NBA rule intended to benefit the players. It's an NBA rule that protects NBA teams. I seem to keep running into people online who think that somehow the NCAA has some say in this and they truly don't.

If you feel that kids should be able to go pro out of high school in their profession of choice, that's fine. But your issue isn't with the NCAA. Therefore, I don't see that it the rule has any bearing on the potential payment of players either.

Go Duke!

I agree that the NBA one and done rule has no bearing on whether the NCAA players should be paid. The NCAA is an amateur league so it's not their responsibility to pay players just because the NBA / NFL wont allow them to play professionally until a certain age. They should be suing the NBA and NFL not the NCAA.

And yes I know the lawsuit by O'Bannon and others was about using their likeness. The solution to that is for the NCAA not market player names and images. That should not include replaying game highlights though imo.

[toooskies]

I agree that the NBA one and done rule has no bearing on whether the NCAA players should be paid. The NCAA is an amateur league so it's not their responsibility to pay players just because the NBA / NFL wont allow them to play professionally until a certain age. They should be suing the NBA and NFL not the NCAA.

And yes I know the lawsuit by O'Bannon and others was about using their likeness. The solution to that is for the NCAA not market player names and images. That should not include replaying game highlights though imo.

Amateur leagues don't generate more than a billion dollars of revenue annually.

[Zeke]

I'm sorry, I assumed you were advocating something in particular. Please, I'm curious now as to what your point is. Are you suggesting that these athletes don't have the world's best grammar? That isn't shocking news. Do you feel that they should spend time in school to hone their language skills? I seriously doubt that it effects their production in the workplace - if that workplace is the NBA.

This strikes me as mean-spirited. I'm not sure what the relevance is to the idea of compensating NCAA athletes. Again, I will repeat from your "Point 1" earlier in the thread that the NCAA has no bearing whatsoever on the students going pro after high school. If your quotes were intended to illustrate the degree to which athletes ought to stay in school, it's scattershot at best. If it was supposed to be humor, I guess I'm humorless.

Go Duke!

Mountain Devil: Please reference my original post. Many - I dare say most - of the BIG time revenue sports colleges have athletes that are there solely for there athletic abilities and are forced to accomodate to them in some way (early registration for "favored" professors, easy subjects, or no classes at all). Even UNC which is a creditable academic institution is involved in this currently and Duke football was involved many yrs ago. At lesser universities it is even worse. The result is the grammer you hear on ESPN and what I submitted in the post you call mean spirited. Most of these athletes don't really want to be in college. They want to ply their craft, make money, and not made to feel stupid at classes every day. The "system" makes this impossible. I feel the best way to do this is for universities to franchise their name, lease their facilities, and let an independent group take over the running of the revenue sports (or what ever sport is determined during negotiations) without the athletes being required to be students. Basically, I am saying that the system is so badly broken that it needs to be completely junked and a new system instituted. The day of the true student athlete may well be over for big time sports although it may be still in place for some less prominent school and for the non-revenue sports.
By the way, I am against compensating NCAA athletes. under present arrangements. Are you in favor of compensating all the minor sports. Will you compensate women's sports? Will you compensate all equally? Who will be their employer who will be responsible for their workman's compensation and their dementia in later life. as well as various joint injuries? I think the NCAA/universities would like to avoid that liability.

[lotusland]

Amateur leagues don't generate more than a billion dollars of revenue annually.

But in fact it does and it does so largely because it is an amateur league in which the players are student athletes who play for a school that many students, alumni and other folks identify with. Take away that and it won't make those billions any longer. I'd love nothing better than to get the players out of college who don't want or need an education. NFL and NBA rules not withstanding, most of the them just aren't good enough for the show and minor league professional sports don't make money.

[ChillinDuke]

But in fact it does and it does so largely because it is an amateur league in which the players are student athletes who play for a school that many students, alumni and other folks identify with. Take away that and it won't make those billions any longer. I'd love nothing better than to get the players out of college who don't want or need an education. NFL and NBA rules not withstanding, most of the them just aren't good enough for the show and minor league professional sports don't make money.

Yup. As the days go by, I find myself agreeing with this line of thinking more and more.

Take away the powder blue uniform and I couldn't care less about the basketball talents of PJ Hairston, James Michael McAdoo, Marcus Paige, or any of those players just like I don't have any interest in watching Mark Alstork of Ball State.

But add back that powder blue uniform and suddenly I'm willing to shell out triple digit dollars to get a seat at that game.

When people bring up $$$ and paying players - well there's where my money goes. And I don't think the players (and their skills) are the main reason I'm opening my wallet.

- Chillin

[JasonEvans]

Amateur leagues don't generate more than a billion dollars of revenue annually.

I wonder if you added up all the ticket sales and ancillary revenues (food, parking, and so on) from high school football across the country if it would equal more than a billion dollars. I would not be at all surprised if it did.

The Olympic games, back before they allowed track and other athletes to be professionals, were certainly generating billions of dollars in revenues (might need an inflation adjustment, but you get my drift).

Sporting competitions are great entertainment and that means they are worth something. You could probably make a good argument that, starting at the high school level, almost all sports are revenue generators and -- perhaps -- the players deserve a cut of that revenue.

-Jason "how different are NCAA scholarship athletes from high school ones given scholarships to elite private schools and expected to play football and basketball for those schools?" Evans

[sagegrouse]

I wonder if you added up all the ticket sales and ancillary revenues (food, parking, and so on) from high school football across the country if it would equal more than a billion dollars. I would not be at all surprised if it did.


-Jason "how different are NCAA scholarship athletes from high school ones given scholarships to elite private schools and expected to play football and basketball for those schools?" Evans

Here's a start:


•Across the United States there are 26,407 public secondary schools and 10,693 private secondary schools. (Digest of Education Statistics, 2001, Table 89)

Of the 37,000 high schools, let's assume that 10,000 have significant football programs. With a 12-game season (counting playoffs) there would be six "home" games per team, or 60,000 games among these schools. To get to a billion dollars, these game would have to generate an average of $16,000 in revenue. It's possible.

And, of course, many more schools play basketball. If basketball generates one-half as much revenue across the country as football, then football would need just over $10,000 per game. Let's see.... 1,000 attendees times $10 per head.

sagegrouse
'I think we need more data'

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Here's a start:



Of the 37,000 high schools, let's assume that 10,000 have significant football programs. With a 12-game season (counting playoffs) there would be six "home" games per team, or 60,000 games among these schools. To get to a billion dollars, these game would have to generate an average of $16,000 in revenue. It's possible.

And, of course, many more schools play basketball. If basketball generates one-half as much revenue across the country as football, then football would need just over $10,000 per game. Let's see.... 1,000 attendees times $10 per head.

sagegrouse
'I think we need more data'

Here's a very interesting and thoughtful take (http://dukemagazine.duke.edu/article/why-football-matters) specifically on Duke sports, focusing on basketball and football from our own Duke Magazine.

From the article:

At its heart, this comes down to a startling realization, one Krzyzewski certainly grasps. “There are two questions here,” says Charles Clotfelter ’69, a public policy professor and the author of Big-Time Sports in American Universities. “The bigger question is: How necessary is it for Duke University to have big-time basketball? If you assume it is necessary, then you have to start talking about how important is football for the basketball. I don’t think anybody’s asking the first question.”

Very interesting read, as it addresses lots of the questions being posed on this forum concerning football struggles/successes, conference realignment, and the clusterfudge that is the NCAA.

As far as bringing this all back to the OP's points - I don't think that the model he proposed is feasible one, but it becomes increasingly clear that the NCAA is going to have to reform their current policies. It's simply not sustainable. If the NCAA doesn't take the lead by being proactive with some sort of reform, another entity will step forward (a minor league of some sort, an independent clearinghouse for athletes, some sort of private college consortium) that will take advantage of the absurd amounts of money at stake, and will offer the athletes some level of compensation.

The only reason that that NCAA gets away with all the smoke and mirrors and "nonprofit" shenanigans it does, is because they are the only game in town. Eventually, if the NCAA doesn't put their game face on and start taking these things seriously, a contender will come together.

Go Duke!

[grad_devil]

Amateur leagues don't generate more than a billion dollars of revenue annually.

For 2011-12, the NCAA gave 96% of revenues back to the membership, and kept 4% (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Finances/Revenue) for overhead.

From a quick Google search:

Red Cross keeps 9% (http://www.redcross.org/support/donating-fundraising/where-your-money-goes)
The United Way keeps 17% (http://charity.lovetoknow.com/Where_Does_My_United_Way_Money_Go)


I'm not comparing the end goals of the NCAA to the Red Cross or United Way, just wanted to provide some numbers of other non-profits for comparison/discussion.

[lotusland]

Here's a very interesting and thoughtful take (http://dukemagazine.duke.edu/article/why-football-matters) specifically on Duke sports, focusing on basketball and football from our own Duke Magazine.

From the article:

At its heart, this comes down to a startling realization, one Krzyzewski certainly grasps. “There are two questions here,” says Charles Clotfelter ’69, a public policy professor and the author of Big-Time Sports in American Universities. “The bigger question is: How necessary is it for Duke University to have big-time basketball? If you assume it is necessary, then you have to start talking about how important is football for the basketball. I don’t think anybody’s asking the first question.”

Very interesting read, as it addresses lots of the questions being posed on this forum concerning football struggles/successes, conference realignment, and the clusterfudge that is the NCAA.

As far as bringing this all back to the OP's points - I don't think that the model he proposed is feasible one, but it becomes increasingly clear that the NCAA is going to have to reform their current policies. It's simply not sustainable. If the NCAA doesn't take the lead by being proactive with some sort of reform, another entity will step forward (a minor league of some sort, an independent clearinghouse for athletes, some sort of private college consortium) that will take advantage of the absurd amounts of money at stake, and will offer the athletes some level of compensation.

The only reason that that NCAA gets away with all the smoke and mirrors and "nonprofit" shenanigans it does, is because they are the only game in town. Eventually, if the NCAA doesn't put their game face on and start taking these things seriously, a contender will come together.

Go Duke!

Minor leagues won't work as a substitute for college ball so that is not really a threat. I think a viable minor league would be good for college ball but it won't happen because it wouldn't make money. I hope the NCAA reform focuses on tightening up enforcement of the amateur student athlete model. Any type of stipend or compensation would need to be viable for all schools in order to work. I think the economics won't work for a lot of schools. The power schools and conferences actually need the other schools to be invested and at least have a shot at winning occasionally. If they actually separate themselves from the rest of the league with a pay for play model it won't be sustainable. That is why the NFL and NBA have salary caps. Even though the big market teams win a more than their share, The Packers and Steelers can be competitive and even the Bengals can hope for a Super Bowl championship someday.

If it happens I think Duke would be wise to pass. I think there will be enough schools left to have a competitive amateur league and, eventually, the amateur league will win the fans and the others will come back go the fold .

[Atlanta Duke]

Meanwhile, the time bomb of the O'Bannon litigation keeps ticking

In a 24-page ruling issued on Friday, U.S. district judge Claudia Wilken in Oakland refused to dismiss a lawsuit brought against the NCAA by 25 former student-athletes. Wilken ruled that the athletes adequately pled that NCAA violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by blocking them from licensing their names and likenesses to video game publishers and other companies.

http://www.americanlawyer.com/digestTAL.jsp?id=1382720814085&back=law#ixzz2j35RWu1i

http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/ncaa.pdf

That of course does not mean that the NCAA lost the antitrust issue, only that for purposes of ruling on the motion to dismiss the court took all material allegations in plaintiff's amended complaint as true and construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.