Bilas Profiled in the WaPo

[MChambers]

Interesting article. In some ways, it belongs in the UNC scandal thread, but I think it deserves a thread of its own.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/jay-bilas-vs-ncaa-how-a-former-player-with-a-law-degree-became-an-agent-of-change/2014/11/12/7f4254ee-6a7d-11e4-bafd-6598192a448d_story.html?tid=recommended_strip_2

[burnspbesq]

Good article. But (as will come as no surprise to anyone), I think Jay is providing the correct answer to the wrong question.

The correct question is "why are universities spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year, with no compensation from the beneficiaries, running player development schemes for the NFL and the NBA?"

If Jay is correct (and I think he is) that some non-trivial number of D1 football and basketball players aren't in it for an education, then why are they at school? Let the NFL and NBA run their own youth development schemes. Let Jameis Winston earn a salary from the Atlanta Falcons Academy. Let the Chicago Bulls sign Jahlil at 14, put him through their own development system until he's ready to play professionally, loan him to Red Star Belgrade at 18 to put the finishing touches on his development, and bring him into the Bulls first team when he's ready.

If that means that ACC basketball turns into Patriot League basketball and Patriot League basketball turns into NESCAC basketball, so be it.

[Duvall]

Good article. But (as will come as no surprise to anyone), I think Jay is providing the correct answer to the wrong question.

The correct question is "why are universities spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year, with no compensation from the beneficiaries, running player development schemes for the NFL and the NBA?"

If Jay is correct (and I think he is) that some non-trivial number of D1 football and basketball players aren't in it for an education, then why are they at school? Let the NFL and NBA run their own youth development schemes. Let Jameis Winston earn a salary from the Atlanta Falcons Academy. Let the Chicago Bulls sign Jahlil at 14, put him through their own development system until he's ready to play professionally, loan him to Red Star Belgrade at 18 to put the finishing touches on his development, and bring him into the Bulls first team when he's ready.

If that means that ACC basketball turns into Patriot League basketball and Patriot League basketball turns into NESCAC basketball, so be it.

That would work out fine for the schools of the ACC and other leagues. Less fine for Bilas and his employer.

[duke79]

Good article. But (as will come as no surprise to anyone), I think Jay is providing the correct answer to the wrong question.

The correct question is "why are universities spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year, with no compensation from the beneficiaries, running player development schemes for the NFL and the NBA?"

If Jay is correct (and I think he is) that some non-trivial number of D1 football and basketball players aren't in it for an education, then why are they at school? Let the NFL and NBA run their own youth development schemes. Let Jameis Winston earn a salary from the Atlanta Falcons Academy. Let the Chicago Bulls sign Jahlil at 14, put him through their own development system until he's ready to play professionally, loan him to Red Star Belgrade at 18 to put the finishing touches on his development, and bring him into the Bulls first team when he's ready.

If that means that ACC basketball turns into Patriot League basketball and Patriot League basketball turns into NESCAC basketball, so be it.

Couldn't agree more. Plus, you avoid having kids in college who should not be in college and the schools (a la UNC) bending all sorts of rules to keep them eligible to play sports.

[cspan37421]

Good article. But (as will come as no surprise to anyone), I think Jay is providing the correct answer to the wrong question.

The correct question is "why are universities spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year, with no compensation from the beneficiaries, running player development schemes for the NFL and the NBA?"

If Jay is correct (and I think he is) that some non-trivial number of D1 football and basketball players aren't in it for an education, then why are they at school? Let the NFL and NBA run their own youth development schemes. Let Jameis Winston earn a salary from the Atlanta Falcons Academy. Let the Chicago Bulls sign Jahlil at 14, put him through their own development system until he's ready to play professionally, loan him to Red Star Belgrade at 18 to put the finishing touches on his development, and bring him into the Bulls first team when he's ready.

If that means that ACC basketball turns into Patriot League basketball and Patriot League basketball turns into NESCAC basketball, so be it.

This, this, and a thousand times, this!

The problem with paying players is competitive balance. It will be gone, unless schools re-align divisions based on some mixture of alumni base (size and giving), endowment, etc.. And if there's a salary cap, forget it - teams will cheat as they do now to give more benefits and attract the more desirable recruits. We already pay them now (in kind) and there is a cap on it. And we have cheaters. There is no sound reason to believe this will change if payment in cash is allowed as well. It just moves the bar a little.

Not to mention how the relationship of the school and the student body would be changed by having a professional team. In the article, Jay says there would be academic performance and behavioral requirements. Well, there already are and we know the hypocrisy that engenders. Why even bother to pretend they are students under Jay's scenario?

No, IMO it would be better to require student athletes to be more like students than they are now, than to go down Jay's proposed road. If the latter is inevitable, let the pro leagues set up and maintain minor league feeder systems separate from universities. I don't know about you guys but I don't need someone who can catch and slam an alley-oop pass while wearing Duke on their chest to be proud of my school. It's nice, sure, but it's a lot less nice (to me) if they're just a hired gun, and that's what Jay is proposing.

Perhaps the NCAA could allow some pay-to-play experiment in D-II ball and see how it goes. You know, how the states can be incubators for daring public policy changes?

[wilko]

Perhaps the NCAA could allow some pay-to-play experiment in D-II ball and see how it goes. You know, how the states can be incubators for daring public policy changes?

All the NCAA has to do is extend Amateur status to the D-league... Treat it a juco for colleges should a player want out having NEVER played on an NBA roster. or if a player gets called up to the NBA- good luck and god bless..

[cspan37421]

All the NCAA has to do is extend Amateur status to the D-league... Treat it a juco for colleges should a player want out having NEVER played on an NBA roster. or if a player gets called up to the NBA- good luck and god bless..

Yeah, maybe they should try to get the CBA to embrace some academics - like courses in contract law, healthy lifestyles, investments and managing money, etc. Let them quite literally major in basketball.

[weezie]

One thing for sure, no one can accuse our Jay of taking fake Swahili classes. He's legit.

[wilko]

Yeah, maybe they should try to get the CBA to embrace some academics - like courses in contract law, healthy lifestyles, investments and managing money, etc. Let them quite literally major in basketball.

I have NO clue why the CBA doesn't value the jobs of veterans and is so willing to bring in guys to push them out.
If they adapted a wage/incentive scale based on # of yrs played US/Overseas + yrs of College + D-league... They could place a premium on getting a finished product... but all the GMs are worried about missing on the Jordan and the agents have less guys to funnel thru as quickly and that means less $ for them..

[CDu]

The problem with "forcing" the NBA and NFL to create their own minor leagues is that, like baseball, we would see the quality of players in college bball and football diminish substantially. The fear then from the universities' perspective is that this would kill their money making opportunities. They don't want to risk football (and basketball in some cases) turning into a non-revenue sport like baseball.

Whether or not this would actually happen is largely irrelevant; as long as the universities fear the possibility (and as long as football and bball are generating profits as is), they will continue to be willing to act as a de facto minor league.

[AncientPsychicT]

The problem with "forcing" the NBA and NFL to create their own minor leagues is that, like baseball, we would see the quality of players in college bball and football diminish substantially. The fear then from the universities' perspective is that this would kill their money making opportunities. They don't want to risk football (and basketball in some cases) turning into a non-revenue sport like baseball.

Whether or not this would actually happen is largely irrelevant; as long as the universities fear the possibility (and as long as football and bball are generating profits as is), they will continue to be willing to act as a de facto minor league.

Except the suggestions outlined above don't mirror baseball, they mirror European soccer. In general, European sports leagues are much much MUCH better run than their American counterparts, and it primarily has to do with longstanding policies concerning league structure and how players are developed. IMO, European style youth development is just one of several structural changes American leagues should adopt in order to improve their general structure. If that means that college sports essentially get reduced to club-level competitions across the board, well, that would be part of the point of adopting the Euro-style system in the first place. Cause, really, that's what they should be.

[CameronBlue]

No, IMO it would be better to require student athletes to be more like students than they are now, than to go down Jay's proposed road. If the latter is inevitable, let the pro leagues set up and maintain minor league feeder systems separate from universities. I don't know about you guys but I don't need someone who can catch and slam an alley-oop pass while wearing Duke on their chest to be proud of my school. It's nice, sure, but it's a lot less nice (to me) if they're just a hired gun, and that's what Jay is proposing.



I completely agree with your post because I believe that potentially the mission of higher education is being compromised to uncertain effect. But to your point in bold Bilas would contend that's what players already are, hired guns who are unfairly compensated and to whom school pride and the spirit of collegial competition are vestigial. (I think we're lucky this is not true of many who played for Duke but certainly some and the trend across NCAA Division I sports is clear). As a Duke alum and fan of college basketball I'm perfectly content to live within that fantasy but I realize it's dishonest and unbalanced. Bilas proposes bringing balance to the relationship by paying players. The question for fans of the revenue producing sports is whether they're ready for that level of honesty. Bilas assumes the Golden Goose will survive the rendering. We'll see.

[Reilly]

... "why are universities spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year, with no compensation from the beneficiaries, running player development schemes for the NFL and the NBA?" ...

Because the universities believe it is in their best interests to do so, as they receive publicity, get some sort of prestige, get tv money, attract other tuition-paying students who want sports, keep alums who fill coffers happy, associate themselves with a long American cultural tradition of college sports ....

The universities are not saying: "Hey, the NBA and NFL are great things; let's spend tens of millions of dollars this year trying to produce skilled players for them even though they are not paying us."

The universities are saying: "How can we be cool? How can we be attractive to tv companies that give out money, to students who pay tuition, to alums who donate? How can we get money ourselves? How can we best serve some of our students by giving them the chance to experience competition and grow in the ways that athletics help folks grow?" And it's not just about money. They ask "how can we create a cohesive student body? How can we use sports to help the humans who are associated with us to thrive?"

There are a lot of goods (or at least perceived goods) to be had from college sports. Some universities believe it in their best interest to pursue those. The universities' pursuit of the goods turns into a player development program for rich pro sports leagues. That's not the universities' goal, however (though for some it is even then (at least partly) due to the prestige/PR of having a Grant Hill or Shane Battier out there).

[Reilly]

Why do conservatories spend millions per year running professional development programs for symphonies with little compensation from the beneficiaries?

[sagegrouse]

The reality is that college sports is a significant industry in the U.S., with revenues for the colleges in excess of $10 billion. And, revenues are much greater when counting TV and merchandise (even subtracting the double count). It's how things work here. In Europe there are sports clubs in every city that may serve a comparable function -- and are far better at player development, as others have noted. Moreover, there is a huge amount invested in brands such as the "Big Ten," "Bama," "UCLA," and so forth. It is unrealistic to think the colleges will walk away from all this value that has been created. Moreover, it benefits schools beyond sports, at least for those schools that are household names, of which Duke is one.*

I will give Bilas his due -- he wants athletes get some of the loot -- such as the rights to their own likeness. I think it's fair, but needs to be a workable system. I am scared to death of what it does to competitive balance. Of course, the NCAA -- or the top programs as a group -- will move at a glacial pace, so I don't expect an upheaval of major proportions.

Sage
'Trying to keep an open mind'
* Sports is one reason Duke and Stanford are better-known education brands than Emory, Wash U, Johns Hopkins, and Chicago -- all terrific schools

[TampaDuke]

That would work out fine for the schools of the ACC and other leagues. Less fine for Bilas and his employer.

It's hard to see the unions, or even the pro teams, wanting it either.

[tux]

Because the universities believe it is in their best interests to do so, as they receive publicity, get some sort of prestige, get tv money, attract other tuition-paying students who want sports, keep alums who fill coffers happy, associate themselves with a long American cultural tradition of college sports ....

The universities are not saying: "Hey, the NBA and NFL are great things; let's spend tens of millions of dollars this year trying to produce skilled players for them even though they are not paying us."

The universities are saying: "How can we be cool? How can we be attractive to tv companies that give out money, to students who pay tuition, to alums who donate? How can we get money ourselves? How can we best serve some of our students by giving them the chance to experience competition and grow in the ways that athletics help folks grow?" And it's not just about money. They ask "how can we create a cohesive student body? How can we use sports to help the humans who are associated with us to thrive?"

There are a lot of goods (or at least perceived goods) to be had from college sports. Some universities believe it in their best interest to pursue those. The universities' pursuit of the goods turns into a player development program for rich pro sports leagues. That's not the universities' goal, however (though for some it is even then (at least partly) due to the prestige/PR of having a Grant Hill or Shane Battier out there).


The reality is that college sports is a significant industry in the U.S., with revenues for the colleges in excess of $10 billion. And, revenues are much greater when counting TV and merchandise (even subtracting the double count). It's how things work here. In Europe there are sports clubs in every city that may serve a comparable function -- and are far better at player development, as others have noted. Moreover, there is a huge amount invested in brands such as the "Big Ten," "Bama," "UCLA," and so forth. It is unrealistic to think the colleges will walk away from all this value that has been created. Moreover, it benefits schools beyond sports, at least for those schools that are household names, of which Duke is one.*

I will give Bilas his due -- he wants athletes get some of the loot -- such as the rights to their own likeness. I think it's fair, but needs to be a workable system. I am scared to death of what it does to competitive balance. Of course, the NCAA -- or the top programs as a group -- will move at a glacial pace, so I don't expect an upheaval of major proportions.

Sage
'Trying to keep an open mind'
* Sports is one reason Duke and Stanford are better-known education brands than Emory, Wash U, Johns Hopkins, and Chicago -- all terrific schools



Great points here by Reilly and Sage.

I'm very much opposed to paying the players; I worry about all the unintended consequences of trying to have a system like Bilas is proposing. I keep coming back to all the ways players are already being compensated. The most obvious are the scholarships. But you also have to include the incredible support systems in place for student-athletes, the world-class facilities for training, as well as the benefits of the TV exposure, etc. in building personal brands. The latter is a way for the best players (the ones who will be in the NBA and who create the most value for the schools) to get "compensated" in proportion to the value they create. So, there's a lot there that already works in terms of fairness.

Also, it's not clear to me that the "product" being sold is actually the players per se --- obviously, you need the players but I think it's much more nuanced. E.g., the quality of the players was much greater in the 80s and early 90s before all the best players started leaving early or not showing up at all. But the interest in college basketball did not really suffer and the TV money keeps getting bigger. As a Duke fan (and alum), I'd still be tuning in to watch Duke play if J. Okafor had decided to play in Europe for a year. I.e., the players are essential but any given individual is not linked to the TV money as directly as I think Bilas et al. are assuming.

[The Gordog]

Except the suggestions outlined above don't mirror baseball, they mirror European soccer. In general, European sports leagues are much much MUCH better run than their American counterparts, and it primarily has to do with longstanding policies concerning league structure and how players are developed. IMO, European style youth development is just one of several structural changes American leagues should adopt in order to improve their general structure. If that means that college sports essentially get reduced to club-level competitions across the board, well, that would be part of the point of adopting the Euro-style system in the first place. Cause, really, that's what they should be.

Agree, although I don't see it ever sinking that low. Soccer is more than a club sport for sure. Honestly, I would prefer that no one be allowed to get a Duke degree that did not get in on an even playing field. I understand that legacies and under-represented populations get a few extra points on the application (but I wonder if a certain over-represented population gets a subtraction -- somehow I doubt it.) But I digress. It's a problem in American culture that we conflate jock culture and college life. You know what the best statistical predictor of income is for an American male? Not IQ, not family connections, but height. Back in the day our institutions of higher ed were filled exclusively with well-fed (thus taller) (relatively) rich young men. There is an image of the successful American that is conflated with the athletic college boy. I think it's misleading and leaves some of our best people out. As long as we continue to link athletes and college so strongly this distortion will persist.

I won't hold my breath waiting for this type of change. We seem to be stuck with the system we have and Bilas' answer may be the best marginal improvement we can realisticly hope for.

[CDu]

Except the suggestions outlined above don't mirror baseball, they mirror European soccer. In general, European sports leagues are much much MUCH better run than their American counterparts, and it primarily has to do with longstanding policies concerning league structure and how players are developed. IMO, European style youth development is just one of several structural changes American leagues should adopt in order to improve their general structure. If that means that college sports essentially get reduced to club-level competitions across the board, well, that would be part of the point of adopting the Euro-style system in the first place. Cause, really, that's what they should be.

The proposed changes above actually do mirror baseball in the way that matters to the universities. If we create a youth system like the European leagues, then the best talent will not be playing in college football and basketball anymore (just like in college baseball). The fear that the universities have is that taking away the best players will damage the product and ultimately reduce their revenue.

Would it be a "better" system? You'd resolve the problem of non-students in universities for sure. And in that sense, that's great. But taking away the money generated by college football and basketball programs might do in the other college sports altogether.

I'm not arguing that, from an ideal view of what college should be, the Euro system is better. My point is merely that the universities have no interest in doing that because they fear the loss of revenue that might occur from taking away the talent. It doesn't matter whether the talent is stripped from college via a minor league (like baseball) or via a youth system and loan structure (like the Euro leagues). From the universities' perspective, it just matters that the talent is stripped and that causes fear that they'll lose their golden goose of revenue sports.

[Li_Duke]

Lots of talk about preserving competitive balance in this thread, but how much competitive balance do we have now?

The teams that get the best players are those willing to spend on good coaches, perks, and facilities. If paying players is allowed, those teams will allocate money to players more and coaches/perks/facilities less. There will still be the occasional mid-major that pulls the upset and the occasional top player who attends a different school because they offer him a better package of playing time/money/etc... or because their dad coaches there.

Yes, some players genuinely want to get an education. When I chose Duke over other schools for undergrad, I based it off of how much they were offering me (grants/scholarships), how much they could help my future growth, and how much I would enjoy being there. In doing so, I turned down a generous "research" stipend from another school. So in my mind, offering money to players doesn't make their decisions any different than mine.

[burnspbesq]

Why do conservatories spend millions per year running professional development programs for symphonies with little compensation from the beneficiaries?

Working musicians and dancers give back to conservatories every day, in ways large and small (I have a front-row seat for this; the kid spent two years at Cornish in Seattle, and is now at the London Contemporary Dance School), from full-time and adjunct faculty appointments, to master classes, to summer institutes at places like Tanglewood. The only sport I'm aware of that experiences any similar give-back is men's lax, where a fair number of active MLL players serve as D1 assistant coaches.

[burnspbesq]

i wonder how many (to cite only one, highly visible example) Pumas players have ever set foot in a classroom at UNAM. Because that's the logical end of the road that Bilas is suggesting we embark down; frankly pro teams whose only connection to the school is branding.

[Reilly]

Working musicians and dancers give back to conservatories every day, in ways large and small (I have a front-row seat for this; the kid spent two years at Cornish in Seattle, and is now at the London Contemporary Dance School), from full-time and adjunct faculty appointments, to master classes, to summer institutes at places like Tanglewood. The only sport I'm aware of that experiences any similar give-back is men's lax, where a fair number of active MLL players serve as D1 assistant coaches.

I think we're talking about different things.

I understood your orginal question to be "Why are the universities preparing athletes for the professional leagues (at a lot of cost to the universities), and yet the professional leagues are not paying the universities to do this job?"

I think the same question applies to nearly any profession: The professional symphonies are not paying the conservatories to develop the pro musicians.

That a symphony player supplements her income with an adjunct professorship at the local conservatory is not the same as the professional symphony itself paying the conservatory for producing its talent. Just like the fact that Grant Hill has given back to Duke via art donations and $ donations and -- I don't know -- participating at K Academies or something is not the same as the professional league (NBA) paying the NCAA for developing its talent.

The answer to why universities do sports and why conservatories do music is the same: because they want to. They think it's a good thing to do. For all sorts of reasons -- fostering human achievement, pursuit of institutional glory, giving their kids opportunities, seeking money for their institutions.

That there are money-making entities not tied to the schools (the NBA, the NFL, the professional symphonies) is a by-product.

I understood your question about universities to be "why be in the professional athlete development business when you are not being paid to be in it" and merely noting that the same question could be asked of a conservatory -- the beneficiary of the professional development (the symphony) is not paying the conservatory to develop the musician.

Institutions do what they want to do. Sometimes, 3d parties benefit from the institution's activtities. Just b/c 3d parties benefit does not mean that the betterment of the 3d parties is what was driving the institutions' decision-making. I understood your original question to be asserting that: that the institutuion is doing something illogical (the prep work for somebody else) and not getting paid for it and simply pointing out the prep work is a by-product, they have their own reasons, and the same can be said of other learning environments like a conservatory.

[Indoor66]

I think we're talking about different things.

I understood your orginal question to be "Why are the universities preparing athletes for the professional leagues (at a lot of cost to the universities), and yet the professional leagues are not paying the universities to do this job?"

I think the same question applies to nearly any profession: The professional symphonies are not paying the conservatories to develop the pro musicians.

That a symphony player supplements her income with an adjunct professorship at the local conservatory is not the same as the professional symphony itself paying the conservatory for producing its talent. Just like the fact that Grant Hill has given back to Duke via art donations and $ donations and -- I don't know -- participating at K Academies or something is not the same as the professional league (NBA) paying the NCAA for developing its talent.

The answer to why universities do sports and why conservatories do music is the same: because they want to. They think it's a good thing to do. For all sorts of reasons -- fostering human achievement, pursuit of institutional glory, giving their kids opportunities, seeking money for their institutions.

That there are money-making entities not tied to the schools (the NBA, the NFL, the professional symphonies) is a by-product.

I understood your question about universities to be "why be in the professional athlete development business when you are not being paid to be in it" and merely noting that the same question could be asked of a conservatory -- the beneficiary of the professional development (the symphony) is not paying the conservatory to develop the musician.

Institutions do what they want to do. Sometimes, 3d parties benefit from the institution's activtities. Just b/c 3d parties benefit does not mean that the betterment of the 3d parties is what was driving the institutions' decision-making. I understood your original question to be asserting that: that the institutuion is doing something illogical (the prep work for somebody else) and not getting paid for it and simply pointing out the prep work is a by-product, they have their own reasons, and the same can be said of other learning environments like a conservatory.

Doesn't society, as a whole, benefit from the activities and teaching of Colleges and Universities? Note, I said activities and teachings. The education entities exist to further humanity and societies. Man does not live by bread alone.

[Reilly]

Indoor66 -- I agree society benefits from these institutions. Never suggested otherwise.

I was replying to burnspbesq's positing of the "correct" question. I don't think it's the correct question. I don't think the organizations see themselves in the "grooming of professional athletes" business and his question (as I understood it) was "why are you in the grooming of professional athletes business when the sports leagues are not paying you to be in that business?"

I think the correct questions to ask are: (1) Duke and everybody else, what are you getting out of this sports landscape?; (2) What's it costing -- in all the ways you can calculate "costs"?; and (3) Is it worth it?

That certain third parties like pro leagues benefit from Duke's foray into sports is not really that interesting or important of a point, to me.

[sagegrouse]

Indoor66 -- I agree society benefits from these institutions. Never suggested otherwise.

I was replying to burnspbesq's positing of the "correct" question. I don't think it's the correct question. I don't think the organizations see themselves in the "grooming of professional athletes" business and his question (as I understood it) was "why are you in the grooming of professional athletes business when the sports leagues are not paying you to be in that business?"

I think the correct questions to ask are: (1) Duke and everybody else, what are you getting out of this sports landscape?; (2) What's it costing -- in all the ways you can calculate "costs"?; and (3) Is it worth it?

That certain third parties like pro leagues benefit from Duke's foray into sports is not really that interesting or important of a point, to me.

In the same vein, Fuqua grads are apparently wowing the business world, and I don't think their employers are paying a dime to Duke.

[oldnavy]

I am not in favor of "paying" college players to play while in school. My feeling is that their compensation is more than adequate for what they are asked to do.

I think it is irrelevant how much money is being made by the NCAA, ESPN, DUKE, etc... The fact that so much money is being made is what allows the for the opportunity in the first place.

The question to me is simple, perhaps too simple: Are the kids asked to do more than what is fair for a free college education? I think the answer is no, what they are asked to do for the opportunity they are afforded is fair.

Trying to convince the average parent of the average college student that Jay Bilas or Jahil Okafor got a raw deal while getting all expenses paid to go to school and play ball is a hard sell.

Beside, the players that are worth paying now (the ones being marketed) are the same ones that are going to be making mega bucks in most cases 1-2 years anyway.

I don't expect agreement with my opinion btw... I am just an old fart with old ideas....