PDA

View Full Version : How to Pay NCAA Revenue Athletes



Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
03-01-2018, 08:09 AM
In an effort to consolidate the discussion over paying NCAA athletes, I'm creating this thread. Hopefully, this will clean up the Yahoo Sports Allegations thread and some others - I admit that I've been party to sullying that thread and others trying to come up with creative solutions.

What I hope is that this thread is NOT for the discussion of whether or not paying players is a good idea - someone else can create a thread specifically for that if they like - but rather to come up with creative solutions that would make a feasible system for players to share in some of the revenue they create for their schools and the NCAA.

Some ideas that have been kicked around on other threads:

- Allow players to collect a share of their jerseys or other items sold with their explicit likeness

- Allow players to sign endorsement contracts with companies while playing NCAA basketball

- Allow boosters to offer money (legally!) to players attending the school they support

- Allow players to sign with agents, and agents to front them money while playing college ball

Let's start a discussion on the merits of these ideas and any others you might have, including predicting the potential downside of such systems. Maybe we here on DBR can reinvent the wheel!

Wheat/"/"/"
03-01-2018, 08:49 AM
1) Schools license out logo’s and rights to represent them into a separate entity. The AD becomes the GM, basically, of the new, separate from the school, entity.

This would not only continue ongoing revenue for the schools, but would also allow pay to players and deals for endorsements. Schools could negotiate a % of player revenues from their endorsements.

This single action would not only continue to create revenue for the schools, but would also allow players to get fair market value.


Nothing else needs to change...except wave goodby to the NCAA.

wavedukefan70s
03-01-2018, 09:05 AM
I absolutely agree wheat.

thedukelamere
03-01-2018, 09:18 AM
I absolutely agree wheat.

Ummm I don't think that's allowed within a 4 day window leading up to any game between us and them.

hudlow
03-01-2018, 09:27 AM
Signing, negotiating, accepting offers...

It seems that would take a lot of time and be a distraction to a young person in college.

Give the players an equal allowance that would keep even the least talented and most financially distressed enough money for essentials and some leftover for pocket money , for dates, pizza, movies and etc.

I can't think of a better way to destroy a team than to start rewarding certain players on their future merits...

hud

Wheat/"/"/"
03-01-2018, 09:56 AM
Signing, negotiating, accepting offers...

It seems that would take a lot of time and be a distraction to a young person in college.

Give the players an equal allowance that would keep even the least talented and most financially distressed enough money for essentials and some leftover for pocket money , for dates, pizza, movies and etc.

I can't think of a better way to destroy a team than to start rewarding certain players on their future merits...

hud

As long as people are willing to watch the content that the players deliver, a free and open market that values their skill is the only way to go. The least talented players will be pulled up by paying the best and most deserving.

Players will adjust their personal expectations on pay, just like they do when they find themselves on the bench watching a better player play today.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
03-01-2018, 10:24 AM
A problem I forsee with payments from agents and/or companies is attempting to influence playing time or "shutting down" a player at the end of a season. We have seen it in bowl games. I can imagine an agent with an investment in a player urging a kid to stay out of late season games.

PackMan97
03-01-2018, 10:38 AM
A problem I forsee with payments from agents and/or companies is attempting to influence playing time or "shutting down" a player at the end of a season. We have seen it in bowl games. I can imagine an agent with an investment in a player urging a kid to stay out of late season games.

I see the issue you describe of an athlete sitting out to be primarily a football issue and I don't think that will change. For a few reasons.

1) The risk of injury in football is significant.
2) Football has the shortest average career length of any sport. (NFL 3.5 years, NBA, 4.8 years, MLB 5.6 years)
3) Aside from four teams and three games, the bowl games in college football are meaningless in terms of winning a championship.
4) The kids that are sitting out are first round draft picks with nothing left to prove. For example, State's Bradley Chubb sat out our bowl game this year. You just have to look at his games against ND, FSU, Louisville and Clemson to see how he's going to play against the top competition. What is one more game going to do for his draft status? Absolutely nothing.

dukelifer
03-01-2018, 10:43 AM
A problem I forsee with payments from agents and/or companies is attempting to influence playing time or "shutting down" a player at the end of a season. We have seen it in bowl games. I can imagine an agent with an investment in a player urging a kid to stay out of late season games.

As Kyrie showed- be awesome for a few games and you can still be a high pick. For example, Bagley at the beginning of the season looked unstoppable. He is getting figured out. The longer you play- to more the weaknesses are exposed.

You could just have all revenue generating athletes have a different compensation packages. Tuition + board+ books + travel + spending money vs Tuition + board. Then you can divide the pie in different ways to favor the revenue generating athletes. There should be a way to make this fair with Title IX. The institution has a "scholarship/compensation" budget and has to fairly distribute- some will get more some will get less. I would keep agents out for the concern raised above- they will not have the teams' interest at heart.

camion
03-01-2018, 10:50 AM
As long as people are willing to watch the content that the players deliver, a free and open market that values their skill is the only way to go. The least talented players will be pulled up by paying the best and most deserving.

Players will adjust their personal expectations on pay, just like they do when they find themselves on the bench watching a better player play today.

A free and open market is a nice ideal, but in practice does it really work? But that's a separate question for another thread I suspect.

In the case of college athletes if someone gets significantly more money from the pot then someone must get significantly less money. Do all athletes keep the same basic benefits they get now and the stars get extra? If so where does the extra money come from? Non-revenue sports, coaches' salaries, other?

mkirsh
03-01-2018, 11:21 AM
I posted this in a thread a while back, but my concept would be:

1. Allow the players to hire agents. It's crazy to withhold professional representation and advice from them
2. Allow them the rights to their likeness so they can sign individual marketing deals, with a portion of the revenue shared with the school. So whenever the school sells a Grayson Allen jersey, Grayson and Duke share in the proceeds; if Jack White gets sponsored by Outback Steakhouse he and Duke would share the proceeds.
3. There needs to be some formal structure to regulate #1 and #2. Certifying agents (can draft off the NBA process) and setting a standard percentage of revenue share common across all schools.
4. If you want to be a little more restrictive so you don't have Bagley driving a Bentley to class while Mike Buckmire rides his bike, you could put the athlete's money into a trust that pays out a nominal amount while in school (like up to $20k per year) and the rest after 10 years or upon graduation, whichever is first.

This should avoid any title nine issues since this isn't funded by the schools, and also curtail, if not eliminate, under the table dollars. It can create a bidding war between schools (ie the Kentucky boosters can put together a better package than the NC State boosters), but a) some of that exists today in under the table dollars and "soft dollars" like exposure, and b) this is probably an issue only for a limited number of players. There are LOTS of problems with this so I'm not pretending this is an easy solution, but I think it would be a big step in the right direction.

ChillinDuke
03-01-2018, 11:27 AM
The details are the trickier part. But without getting into the weeds, I think three pillars must be established.

1) Open Market - it has to be an open market where the best get to profit more and the worst get to profit less
2) No Direct School Involvement - the $ can't come from schools so as not to impact Title IX and/or non-revenue sports and/or already thin-stretched AD budgets
3) Transparent and Fair - it has to be very clear to all how the system works and it should not unfairly treat the less "wealthy" players nor unfairly reward the more "wealthy" players

IMO, the nuance must stay within these three bounds.

- Chillin

Ian
03-01-2018, 11:27 AM
I posted this in a thread a while back, but my concept would be:

1. Allow the players to hire agents. It's crazy to withhold professional representation and advice from them
2. Allow them the rights to their likeness so they can sign individual marketing deals, with a portion of the revenue shared with the school. So whenever the school sells a Grayson Allen jersey, Grayson and Duke share in the proceeds; if Jack White gets sponsored by Outback Steakhouse he and Duke would share the proceeds.
3. There needs to be some formal structure to regulate #1 and #2. Certifying agents (can draft off the NBA process) and setting a standard percentage of revenue share common across all schools.
4. If you want to be a little more restrictive so you don't have Bagley driving a Bentley to class while Mike Buckmire rides his bike, you could put the athlete's money into a trust that pays out a nominal amount while in school (like up to $20k per year) and the rest after 10 years or upon graduation, whichever is first.

This should avoid any title nine issues since this isn't funded by the schools, and also curtail, if not eliminate, under the table dollars. It can create a bidding war between schools (ie the Kentucky boosters can put together a better package than the NC State boosters), but a) some of that exists today in under the table dollars and "soft dollars" like exposure, and b) this is probably an issue only for a limited number of players. There are LOTS of problems with this so I'm not pretending this is an easy solution, but I think it would be a big step in the right direction.

I like the trust idea. NCAA should remove all restrictions on third party payments to players, all payments must however go into this trust. Make the trust have a maximum capped payment of say $2000 a month to the player while they are in school. They can get the rest of the money by either graduating, or declaring that they are foregoing all their remaining college eligibity. Either action would automatically trigger a full payment of whatever remains in the trust.

UrinalCake
03-01-2018, 11:42 AM
I've thought about the idea of letting players hire agents and make money on their own (endorsements, selling their likeness), without the money coming from the school. In theory this is a good compromise. But in practice I think it would be difficult to regulate. I could see a scenario where a booster says to a recruit, "come to our school and we'll pay you a million dollars do a five second commercial for <insert local business>." There's no way the NCAA could trace who's getting paid legitimately and who's getting money funneled from the schools in ways that are outside the rules.

I agree that letting players hire agents makes sense. Why shouldn't they have professional representation to help them make these enormous life decisions? But again, once you open that door then it becomes very difficult to regulate what behavior is within the rules and what is outside of it.

Ian
03-01-2018, 11:48 AM
I've thought about the idea of letting players hire agents and make money on their own (endorsements, selling their likeness), without the money coming from the school. In theory this is a good compromise. But in practice I think it would be difficult to regulate. I could see a scenario where a booster says to a recruit, "come to our school and we'll pay you a million dollars do a five second commercial for <insert local business>." There's no way the NCAA could trace who's getting paid legitimately and who's getting money funneled from the schools in ways that are outside the rules.

I agree that letting players hire agents makes sense. Why shouldn't they have professional representation to help them make these enormous life decisions? But again, once you open that door then it becomes very difficult to regulate what behavior is within the rules and what is outside of it.

If you allow players to be paid then boosters will be part of the equation, you have to make your peace with that. If you can't then might as well stick with the current amateur model.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
03-01-2018, 12:05 PM
I've thought about the idea of letting players hire agents and make money on their own (endorsements, selling their likeness), without the money coming from the school. In theory this is a good compromise. But in practice I think it would be difficult to regulate. I could see a scenario where a booster says to a recruit, "come to our school and we'll pay you a million dollars do a five second commercial for <insert local business>." There's no way the NCAA could trace who's getting paid legitimately and who's getting money funneled from the schools in ways that are outside the rules.

I agree that letting players hire agents makes sense. Why shouldn't they have professional representation to help them make these enormous life decisions? But again, once you open that door then it becomes very difficult to regulate what behavior is within the rules and what is outside of it.

I have a hard time imagining Coach K on the phone, listening to LeBron James the Second's agent complaining about how his client ought to get more playing time. This is where it falls apart for me: agents doing their job, advocating for more exposure/minutes/shots/starts for their client with college coaches. Or, as I mentioned upthread, an agent for say, Bagley insisting that Bags shut it down before March, having proven himself, to avoid injury risk.

Don't kid yourself, this is what a good agent would do. It is their job to protect their client.

atoomer0881
03-01-2018, 12:45 PM
I have a hard time imagining Coach K on the phone, listening to LeBron James the Second's agent complaining about how his client ought to get more playing time. This is where it falls apart for me: agents doing their job, advocating for more exposure/minutes/shots/starts for their client with college coaches. Or, as I mentioned upthread, an agent for say, Bagley insisting that Bags shut it down before March, having proven himself, to avoid injury risk.

Don't kid yourself, this is what a good agent would do. It is their job to protect their client.

I've read for many people, that one big fear of allowing agents is the basic conflict of interest - agent cares about his client, not the team, i.e. might insist on shutting down the player come March. But how is that any different than agents for NBA stars? Doesn't LeBron's agent care only about LeBron, and not the Cavs? Doesn't Kyrie's agent care only about Kyrie, and not the Celtics? If Marc Gasol was having a stellar season and was due to be a Free Agent at the end of the year, and the Grizzlies were eliminated from playoff contention, wouldn't it be in his agent's best interest to demand that Marc not play the rest of the season, so as not to risk getting injured and ruining his chance at a big new contract?

Wouldn't the final say about whether to play or sit Bagley, rest with the coaching staff, and not Bagley's agent, regardless of what Bagley's agent is demanding? And I'd have to imagine that the top, top players (the ones for who this scenario would likely play out), would be playing for the top teams with top coaching talent who would be equipped to deal with the demands of agents.

Also, couldn't we just add additional rules that agents have no say in playing time, coaching scheme, etc. etc. and any evidence of trying to persuade a coach otherwise would result in sanctions or fines and ultimately end with the agent losing the ability to represent NCAA players? I agree, the whole pay the players debate is a complex one, but I don't really see the same fear in allowing agents as others do. It seems there would be ways to prevent what people are afraid of. Also, if an agent is known to demand his players sit, I'm sure coaches wouldn't want any players being represented by those agents, which could also quickly result in the agent having to change his/her way

Anyways, just my $0.02.

Wheat/"/"/"
03-01-2018, 01:03 PM
A free and open market is a nice ideal, but in practice does it really work? But that's a separate question for another thread I suspect.

In the case of college athletes if someone gets significantly more money from the pot then someone must get significantly less money. Do all athletes keep the same basic benefits they get now and the stars get extra? If so where does the extra money come from? Non-revenue sports, coaches' salaries, other?

Yes, it really works...at least better than other options. It’s sure not working now for the athletes if you look at their % of the pot thats there.

First thing I think we have to agree on is it’s all business and there is no “pot” without the athletes. They create the pot...and business does not give participation trophies. Do the job better and receive more of the pot.

Also we should understand that the “pot” is not guaranteed to be there.
The pot comes from the everyone willing to pay to watch them, the athletes,...or from ad buyers etc...that want to piggy back on the content the athletes create. If people lose interest...(look at NASCAR these days), the pot gets smaller or goes away.

Those who get “significantly” less will deserve less...at least according to how
much the market figures they will contribute to growing the pot.

That’s “fair market value”.

wavedukefan70s
03-01-2018, 01:21 PM
Ummm I don't think that's allowed within a 4 day window leading up to any game between us and them.

It's ok .I took the enemy out to dinner last night.we went out to eat for my wife's birthday.my oldest daughter's boyfriend (unc alum)tries to pay for dinner.claims it's for the beating a few weeks ago.i try to pay for the beating that's comming sat, I proclaimed .while we both try to pay.my other daughter's fiance(gamecock alum) sneaks and pays for the whole thing.
He got tired of hearing us trying to pay he said.i did get the tip though.youngins don't carry cash 😃

ipatent
03-01-2018, 01:24 PM
If the OAD candidates want to get paid, they can play overseas for a year. The rest of them should be happy for the scholarship and platform to showcase their skills. If they don't like it, there's the D League.

Wheat/"/"/"
03-01-2018, 01:26 PM
I have a hard time imagining Coach K on the phone, listening to LeBron James the Second's agent complaining about how his client ought to get more playing time. This is where it falls apart for me: agents doing their job, advocating for more exposure/minutes/shots/starts for their client with college coaches. Or, as I mentioned upthread, an agent for say, Bagley insisting that Bags shut it down before March, having proven himself, to avoid injury risk.

Don't kid yourself, this is what a good agent would do. It is their job to protect their client.

The schools would not be involved in the “entity” running the team, they have that licensed out. Let the market play it all out.

Schools would just collect the money and focus on education, which they should really be doing anyways, not running sports franchises.

The bigger, most popular schools would demand and collect the most money from their license “entity”. Nothing would really change...again, they would let another entity manage the revenue sports and collect fees.

Who cares if agents are involved or boosters are willing to pay the most? The entity would handle it. It already happens anyways, if not overtly. Schools will want the most profit from money put up for players to the entity, so it’s to their benefit it is all out in the open.

Non revenue sports would stay with the school and would benefit from the license deal from the schools entity.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
03-01-2018, 01:39 PM
I've read for many people, that one big fear of allowing agents is the basic conflict of interest - agent cares about his client, not the team, i.e. might insist on shutting down the player come March. But how is that any different than agents for NBA stars? Doesn't LeBron's agent care only about LeBron, and not the Cavs? Doesn't Kyrie's agent care only about Kyrie, and not the Celtics? If Marc Gasol was having a stellar season and was due to be a Free Agent at the end of the year, and the Grizzlies were eliminated from playoff contention, wouldn't it be in his agent's best interest to demand that Marc not play the rest of the season, so as not to risk getting injured and ruining his chance at a big new contract?

Wouldn't the final say about whether to play or sit Bagley, rest with the coaching staff, and not Bagley's agent, regardless of what Bagley's agent is demanding? And I'd have to imagine that the top, top players (the ones for who this scenario would likely play out), would be playing for the top teams with top coaching talent who would be equipped to deal with the demands of agents.

Also, couldn't we just add additional rules that agents have no say in playing time, coaching scheme, etc. etc. and any evidence of trying to persuade a coach otherwise would result in sanctions or fines and ultimately end with the agent losing the ability to represent NCAA players? I agree, the whole pay the players debate is a complex one, but I don't really see the same fear in allowing agents as others do. It seems there would be ways to prevent what people are afraid of. Also, if an agent is known to demand his players sit, I'm sure coaches wouldn't want any players being represented by those agents, which could also quickly result in the agent having to change his/her way

Anyways, just my $0.02.

The difference is that Kyrie/LeBron et al are already making their millions. Bagley is still dealing with the potential of millions. If Kyrie suffers a horrible injury in the playoffs, that sucks, but he is still sitting on a big pile of money. If Bagley has proven his top tier potential and (I refuse to even posit any specific injury) it could literally cost him tens of millions of dollars. An agent would have to be insane not to suggest he shut it down if he were guaranteed the top pick.

Wheat/"/"/"
03-01-2018, 01:42 PM
If the OAD candidates want to get paid, they can play overseas for a year. The rest of them should be happy for the scholarship and platform to showcase their skills. If they don't like it, there's the D League.

Careful what you wish for...

Currently colleges are basically functioning like an NBA D league, it’s just that everyone’s getting rich but the players.

If the best young basketball talent leaves colleges, there is a huge risk that the popularity of college basketball would decline...(along with the quality of play).

I’d hate to see that.

TampaDuke
03-01-2018, 01:43 PM
By nature, I am a free market guy, but even the major professional leagues don't operate in a completely open market. For competitive reasons.

If the pay is coming from boosters, there will likely be a need to regulate or limit it, unless we're comfortable with losing what competitive balance currently exists. My guess is allowing athletes to profit from endorsements would have a lesser detrimental effect on competitive balance, but probably still some.

TampaDuke
03-01-2018, 01:49 PM
Personally, I wouldn't have much problem with allowing representation by approved and regulated agents. Sure, it would come with a host of headaches for coaches and teammates, like we routinely see in the pros, but we're already well on our way down that path with parents, uncles, and the like.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
03-01-2018, 01:52 PM
Careful what you wish for...

Currently colleges are basically functioning like an NBA D league, it’s just that everyone’s getting rich but the players.

If the best young basketball talent leaves colleges, there is a huge risk that the popularity of college basketball would decline...(along with the quality of play).

I’d hate to see that.

Honestly, I would be fine with it. If a legit minor league existed for basketball, and college ball reverted to true amateur status, I would still cheer my brains out for Duke and against UNC.

I really think that would be the best resolution - get the money out of college athletics. The NBA simply has no reason to do this, as NCAA is a glorified proving ground for their players with no infrastructure or financial backing from the NBA.

Wheat/"/"/"
03-01-2018, 01:55 PM
By nature, I am a free market guy, but even the major professional leagues don't operate in a completely open market. For competitive reasons.

If the pay is coming from boosters, there will likely be a need to regulate or limit it, unless we're comfortable with losing what competitive balance currently exists. My guess is allowing athletes to profit from endorsements would have a lesser detrimental effect on competitive balance, but probably still some.

Regulations on a schools “entity” regarding boosters or anything else can absolutely happen...it would all be done by commissioner Bilas :)

Wheat/"/"/"
03-01-2018, 01:59 PM
Honestly, I would be fine with it. If a legit minor league existed for basketball, and college ball reverted to true amateur status, I would still cheer my brains out for Duke and against UNC.

I really think that would be the best resolution - get the money out of college athletics. The NBA simply has no reason to do this, as NCAA is a glorified proving ground for their players with no infrastructure or financial backing from the NBA.

You can’t get the money out. That ketchup is out of the bottle.

Money from college athletics is funding way more than just sports for schools. They depend on it now, and they will fight to keep a revenue stream to the end.

My plan let’s them continue to collect money and gets them out of anything other than education.

Ian
03-01-2018, 02:00 PM
By nature, I am a free market guy, but even the major professional leagues don't operate in a completely open market. For competitive reasons.

If the pay is coming from boosters, there will likely be a need to regulate or limit it, unless we're comfortable with losing what competitive balance currently exists. My guess is allowing athletes to profit from endorsements would have a lesser detrimental effect on competitive balance, but probably still some.

But there isn't competitive balance now. Kansas has won the B-12 14 years in the row! College basketball never had the compeitive balance you're talking about. There are 6-8 teams that are in a tier by themselves that dominate the rest. Teams on the lower tier can occassionally make a run, but none of them can sustain it consistently like the top tier. Once in a long while a new team jump into that tier, and one of the teams in that tier drop out. But that's essentially the game right now.

Right now, the top tier is Kansas, Kentucky, Duke, UNC, Villanova, MSU. Nova moved in recently and UConn dropped out. UVA is right on the cusp now but not there yet. That's why fans of one of these teams pay close attention that what the other teams in this tier do. Duke fans pay much closer attention to what Kansas, Kentucky and Nova does than they do to what Florida State or Clemson is doing. Because Duke fans know that those are the teams that Duke is actually competing against.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
03-01-2018, 02:05 PM
You can’t get the money out. That ketchup is out of the bottle.

Money from college athletics is funding way more than just sports for schools. They depend on it now, and they will fight to keep a revenue stream to the end.

My plan let’s them continue to collect money and gets them out of anything other than education.

Oh, I am under no delusion that it is likely to happen. I just think the situation we are currently in, is the bizarre consequence of having "amateur athletics" that create such massive revenue streams. It simply doesn't pass the straight face test in the big picture.

ipatent
03-01-2018, 02:13 PM
Careful what you wish for...

Currently colleges are basically functioning like an NBA D league, it’s just that everyone’s getting rich but the players.

If the best young basketball talent leaves colleges, there is a huge risk that the popularity of college basketball would decline...(along with the quality of play).

I’d hate to see that.

The quality of players declined in the mid 90s when high schoolers could go directly to the pros and revenues increased. I don't see the D league ever competing with college basketball in terms of popularity. It's the name on the front of the jersey that sells college basketball, not players who are already ready for the NBA.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
03-01-2018, 02:17 PM
The quality of players declined in the mid 90s when high schoolers could go directly to the pros and revenues increased. I don't see the D league ever competing with college basketball in terms of popularity. It's the name on the front of the jersey that sells college basketball, not players who are already ready for the NBA.

I would rather go back in time to an eight team league with less revenue and lower talent levels, where I know the starting five for all eight teams and games start at 3pm on Saturdays.

Wheat/"/"/"
03-01-2018, 02:33 PM
The quality of players declined in the mid 90s when high schoolers could go directly to the pros and revenues increased. I don't see the D league ever competing with college basketball in terms of popularity. It's the name on the front of the jersey that sells college basketball, not players who are already ready for the NBA.

The OAD’s for the NBA are not really the issue...what if that next tier, or two tiers, of players goes to the D league, or big baller league..or whatever?.... instead of going to a school?

We can say that now we are all about the college, but without quality players, is that true for the majority who follow college sports and make it so exciting and lucrative?

And how can we possibly justify the money going everywhere but to the players who are delivering the content these days?.

atoomer0881
03-01-2018, 02:33 PM
The difference is that Kyrie/LeBron et al are already making their millions. Bagley is still dealing with the potential of millions. If Kyrie suffers a horrible injury in the playoffs, that sucks, but he is still sitting on a big pile of money. If Bagley has proven his top tier potential and (I refuse to even posit any specific injury) it could literally cost him tens of millions of dollars. An agent would have to be insane not to suggest he shut it down if he were guaranteed the top pick.

I suppose, but I still think there's ways to prevent a top college player's agent from making demands, based on what I said above. And yes Kyrie has made millions already, but even for his agent, he/she still wants that next big payday because that's more money in his/her own pocket. So I still think my hypothetical with Marc Gasol applies somewhat. It's all about money, and whether you've made millions and have potential to sign a $150 million contract or you're in college and have potential to sign a $10 million contract, the fact is, the agent still wants to do what's in the best interest of his client, not the team. So if we can keep agents at bay in the NBA, I don't see why the NCAA couldn't write rules to keep agents at bay in the NCAA if they were to allow agent representations.

Wheat/"/"/"
03-01-2018, 02:44 PM
I suppose, but I still think there's ways to prevent a top college player's agent from making demands, based on what I said above. And yes Kyrie has made millions already, but even for his agent, he/she still wants that next big payday because that's more money in his/her own pocket. So I still think my hypothetical with Marc Gasol applies somewhat. It's all about money, and whether you've made millions and have potential to sign a $150 million contract or you're in college and have potential to sign a $10 million contract, the fact is, the agent still wants to do what's in the best interest of his client, not the team. So if we can keep agents at bay in the NBA, I don't see why the NCAA couldn't write rules to keep agents at bay in the NCAA if they were to allow agent representations.

Couldn’t these issues be settled with the players contract with the schools entity?

Clause 1a...player agrees to participate in all games unless there is a proven medical reason?

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
03-01-2018, 02:47 PM
I suppose, but I still think there's ways to prevent a top college player's agent from making demands, based on what I said above. And yes Kyrie has made millions already, but even for his agent, he/she still wants that next big payday because that's more money in his/her own pocket. So I still think my hypothetical with Marc Gasol applies somewhat. It's all about money, and whether you've made millions and have potential to sign a $150 million contract or you're in college and have potential to sign a $10 million contract, the fact is, the agent still wants to do what's in the best interest of his client, not the team. So if we can keep agents at bay in the NBA, I don't see why the NCAA couldn't write rules to keep agents at bay in the NCAA if they were to allow agent representations.

Except that if you, as an agent, have personally invest $500k in a kid based on his potential, I think you are far more protective of his future earnings.

And I think it is very feasible to imagine agents being as involved as humanly possible in the coaching decisions that directly affect the exposure of their future pro. As I said, it would be negligent of them not to.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
03-01-2018, 02:48 PM
Couldn’t these issues be settled with the players contract with the schools entity?

Clause 1a...player agrees to participate in all games unless there is a proven medical reason?

Sure. Then you get Bagley with a hurt knee a few weeks ago. And instead of being careful bringing him back, they simply... don't. It is... Sort of medically related. Ish.

MCFinARL
03-01-2018, 02:52 PM
The OAD’s for the NBA are not really the issue...what if that next tier, or two tiers, of players goes to the D league, or big baller league..or whatever?... instead of going to a school?

We can say that now we are all about the college, but without quality players, is that true for the majority who follow college sports and make it so exciting and lucrative?

And how can we possibly justify the money going everywhere but to the players who are delivering the content these days?.

We are getting perilously close to discussing whether paying the players is a good idea, which was expressly not the focus of this topic. But since we are there, I guess in the end I would not be bothered by the next tier or two choosing to go to the D league or elsewhere instead of going to a school, if they don't actually want to go to school for the educational opportunities. I don't necessarily object to paying revenue sport players if we can find a way to do it without damaging non-revenue sports too much and without creating new problems to solve old ones, but I also don't especially like the idea of people going to college only so they can chase their sports dreams and seeing whatever coursework they are absolutely required to do as a necessary evil at best.

In my ideal world, there would be a financially viable D-League (or G-League, as the case may be) for people who want to try to make it to the NBA and are not interested in school, and a financially fair college option (which might include either bigger stipends for all or greater compensation for stars) for those who want to take some classes while they are playing basketball. I'd like to see a lot of the best players choose college--but because it was really their choice and not because it was the only choice. If the ones who choose school stay there long enough to learn to play well together, there is no reason to assume they can't produce a very entertaining quality of basketball.

Wheat/"/"/"
03-01-2018, 02:58 PM
Sure. Then you get Bagley with a hurt knee a few weeks ago. And instead of being careful bringing him back, they simply... don't. It is... Sort of medically related. Ish.

In a injury case like Bagley’s...and he didn’t want to come back but the coach claims he was healthy, the coach could challenge the players pay to play contract clause and let the lawyers sort it out.

ipatent
03-01-2018, 03:18 PM
The OAD’s for the NBA are not really the issue...what if that next tier, or two tiers, of players goes to the D league, or big baller league..or whatever?... instead of going to a school? .

They could be doing that now and they aren't. I don't see it ever happening, and don't think it would be in the interest of most of the players in the secondary tier to forego a chance for college.


We can say that now we are all about the college, but without quality players, is that true for the majority who follow college sports and make it so exciting and lucrative?

It is competitive games that sell, not jump out of the gym talent.


And how can we possibly justify the money going everywhere but to the players who are delivering the content these days?.

We can justify it because most of the revenue comes from the schools' recognition and not that of individual players, and because most of it goes to fund non-revenue sports.

DU82
03-01-2018, 03:24 PM
Define "revenue sport".

In the B1G, wrestling is a "revenue sport". In the SEC, for some schools, women's basketball is a "revenue sport". Heck, Duke receives revenue from WBB, baseball, lacrosse and soccer (ticket sales), are they revenue sports?

And if wrestlers get paid at Iowa, is it required that they get paid at Wake Forest? (Etc. and so on.)

JNort
03-01-2018, 03:24 PM
I posted this in a thread a while back, but my concept would be:

1. Allow the players to hire agents. It's crazy to withhold professional representation and advice from them
2. Allow them the rights to their likeness so they can sign individual marketing deals, with a portion of the revenue shared with the school. So whenever the school sells a Grayson Allen jersey, Grayson and Duke share in the proceeds; if Jack White gets sponsored by Outback Steakhouse he and Duke would share the proceeds.
3. There needs to be some formal structure to regulate #1 and #2. Certifying agents (can draft off the NBA process) and setting a standard percentage of revenue share common across all schools.
4. If you want to be a little more restrictive so you don't have Bagley driving a Bentley to class while Mike Buckmire rides his bike, you could put the athlete's money into a trust that pays out a nominal amount while in school (like up to $20k per year) and the rest after 10 years or upon graduation, whichever is first.

This should avoid any title nine issues since this isn't funded by the schools, and also curtail, if not eliminate, under the table dollars. It can create a bidding war between schools (ie the Kentucky boosters can put together a better package than the NC State boosters), but a) some of that exists today in under the table dollars and "soft dollars" like exposure, and b) this is probably an issue only for a limited number of players. There are LOTS of problems with this so I'm not pretending this is an easy solution, but I think it would be a big step in the right direction.

I agree with 1 and 4 so by extension I accept 3 as well. Number 2 however I think is bad, it would make all recruits want to go to only big time money schools. So yeah Duke, UK, UNC, and a select few other schools are gonna hog even more talent since the athletes will get paid based off of how much of their gear sells and gear at the blue blood schools sells easier

ChillinDuke
03-01-2018, 03:26 PM
This doesn't exactly relate to the question posed by this thread.

But if you let kids go freely to the G-League (instead of college), I highly doubt that league could absorb more than, say, 30 kids per year. After 3 years or so, you're already at about 100 players, which equates to more than 8 teams (at 12 players per team). And don't forget the G-League already has older, established and journeymen type players in it. So how many teams and/or players could actually be absorbed at this level?

My point is: there will still be plenty of good basketball players that are un-absorbable into a G-League-esque level. Plenty.

So, do we still pay them? The answer may be yes. But it's not a completely separable topic from the "let them go freely elsewhere" debate. They are somewhat related.

- Chillin

PackMan97
03-01-2018, 03:28 PM
Define "revenue sport".

In the B1G, wrestling is a "revenue sport". In the SEC, for some schools, women's basketball is a "revenue sport". Heck, Duke receives revenue from WBB, baseball, lacrosse and soccer (ticket sales), are they revenue sports?

And if wrestlers get paid at Iowa, is it required that they get paid at Wake Forest? (Etc. and so on.)

Typically a "revenue sport" is considered a sport that brings in more revenue than they spend on coaching and travel.

JNort
03-01-2018, 03:31 PM
IMO this is how I would like to see it.

1. Players can sign with agents while still in school. Agents can front them money up to a certain amount per year.

2. Players can get a share of money off of their likeness being used.

2a. They only get the "likeness" money if they get a degree from said school. So transferring away before a degree means they forfeit the money as well as going pro early.

3. All players get paid a minimum wage for hours they put in for practice, games, travel, workouts, film study, etc...

ipatent
03-01-2018, 03:38 PM
Typically a "revenue sport" is considered a sport that brings in more revenue than they spend on coaching and travel.

As of a few years ago the only revenue team under that definition other than football and MBB was the UConn WBB team because they have a regional cable TV deal. All the others lose money.

SCMatt33
03-01-2018, 03:51 PM
I personally think title IX is going to be a bigger issue than is being discussed here. Not necessarily that anything will be forced to change from these plans, but there will absolutely be long drawn out legal battles over it, some that colleges may or may not want to get involved with. Obviously, any money that ever touches the school would be an issue. For example, anything based on jersey sales for a kid would come into question. A lawsuit could argue that the school needs to make up for the shortfall on the women's side if you pay all players (men and women) based on those. It's been decades, but the courts have previously rejected arguments that you should be allowed to spend more on the sports that make more and there's no reason to think this would change now.

It gets tricker for non-school money, but there will still be arguments made. They may not win a suit, but I'm not sure it would be immediately dismissed either and cause schools to have to decide whether they want to try and settle or have to go through a full legal battle. For example, one of the most popular suggestions that supposedly avoids Title IX is simply allowing them to make money on endorsements and such, the so called Olympic rule. Now much of this endorsement money is expected to come from people who are currently boosters. If boosters suddenly start disproportionately paying male athletes while donating less, I can see a lawsuit claiming that booster x paid y dollars to the school and athletes and the school should be responsible for making up the shortfall on the women's side through how it distributes its money. Again, I don't know (and likely even doubt) that such a suit would succeed, but I also don't think it would be immediately dismissed and the schools would have to go through a long legal battle over it.

I won't even begin to try and touch potential tax implications for both schools and players in all of this...

Ultimately, and this strays a bit off topic, the best thing for players is to allow them to enter the draft as they want, but also allow nba teams to draft them, pay them and hold their rights without forcing them into the 15 man roster if they aren't ready for an NBA court. the biggest disservice to players is that an NBA team needs to feel the player is ready for a spot on the 15 man roster from day 1, otherwise they must get cut and the team has very limited interest in development as any team can grab them from the D league.

House P
03-02-2018, 02:59 PM
But there isn't competitive balance now. Kansas has won the B-12 14 years in the row! College basketball never had the compeitive balance you're talking about. There are 6-8 teams that are in a tier by themselves that dominate the rest. Teams on the lower tier can occassionally make a run, but none of them can sustain it consistently like the top tier. Once in a long while a new team jump into that tier, and one of the teams in that tier drop out. But that's essentially the game right now.

Right now, the top tier is Kansas, Kentucky, Duke, UNC, Villanova, MSU. Nova moved in recently and UConn dropped out. UVA is right on the cusp now but not there yet. That's why fans of one of these teams pay close attention that what the other teams in this tier do. Duke fans pay much closer attention to what Kansas, Kentucky and Nova does than they do to what Florida State or Clemson is doing. Because Duke fans know that those are the teams that Duke is actually competing against.

I agree with your premise that NCAA basketball is hardly a paragon of competitive balance. That being said, I would be concerned about approaches for compensating players which significantly degrade whatever level of competitive balance currently exists. I don't think it would be good for college basketball if the competitive balance begins to look like a European Football league where 2-3 teams win more than 90% of the championships (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Portuguese_football_champions).

Here are a few stats which speak to the current level of competitive balance, or lack thereof, in NCAA men's basketball.

NCAA Championship Games
- In the last 20 years, 22 different teams have played in an NCAA championship game.
- 14 of the last 20 championship games included a team not listed above as one of the 7 "top tier" teams (Duke, UK, KU, UNC, Mich St, Villanova/UCONN).

KenPom Rankings
- In the 16 seasons KenPom has ranked teams, 23 different teams have finished in top 3.

Recruiting Rankings
- Since the one-and-done era began in 2007, 45 different schools have landed at least one Freshman ranked in the top 15 of the final RSCI rankings.
- In the same period, 59 different schools have landed at least on Top 25 prospect.
- More than 60% of the top 25 prospects in the one and done era went to a school other than the 7 "top tier" teams listed above.



This is a bit off topic, but here is a list of schools which have successfully recruited at least one Top 25 RSCI player in the past 12 years.





College
Top 25 Recruits


Kentucky
36


Duke
29


North Carolina
17


Arizona
16


Kansas
15


UCLA
13


Texas
12


Ohio State
9


Syracuse
9


Louisville
8


Florida
7


Memphis
7


Michigan State
6


Villanova
6


Florida State
6


Indiana
6


Connecticut
5


Georgia Tech
5


UNLV
5


NC State
5


LSU
4


Washington
4


Oklahoma
4


Tennessee
4


Oregon
4


Baylor
3


Pittsburgh
3


Georgetown
3


California
3


Alabama
3


Kansas State
2


Mississippi State
2


Oklahoma State
2


USC
2


Stanford
2


Arkansas
2


Missouri
2


Providence
2


Miami (FL)
2


Purdue
2


Georgia
2


Marquette
1


Maryland
1


Seton Hall
1


SMU
1


Texas A&M
1


Wake Forest
1


Arizona State
1


Auburn
1


Nevada
1


UTEP
1


Wisconsin
1


Clemson
1


Detroit
1


Virginia Tech
1


Michigan
1


Illinois
1


South Carolina
1


Cincinnati
1

Ian
03-02-2018, 03:32 PM
I think your recruiting numbers actually support my point, out of 351 schools in DIV I, the top 10 gets 55% and the top 25 gets 81% of them. And given there are roster limits, and playing time realities that makes it impossible for all the top players to end up in the top few schools every year, which would still apply to any system that allowed boosters to pay students. I'm not sure allowing payments would suddenly change the distribution of top recruits much given how skewed they already are toward the top schools.

HereBeforeCoachK
03-02-2018, 03:39 PM
Yes, it really works...at least better than other options. It’s sure not working now for the athletes if you look at their % of the pot thats there.

First thing I think we have to agree on is it’s all business and there is no “pot” without the athletes. They create the pot...

No they don't create the pot. This pot has been boiling for 70 years. No 18 year old today created this pot. They join a pot that the combination of fans, schools, coaches, the NCAA, the TV networks, etc, have been creating for mucho tiempo. This is where this discussion breaks down for me. So many people say the players generate the money. No, they don't, other than being a very temporary labor force for a very long term revenue stream.

How do you pay today's Marvin Bagley for a pot that was generated by John Wooden, CBS, Christian Laettner, Kentucky, UCLA, Kansas, Dean Smith, Coach K, Vic Bubas.........and on and on and on........in years past?

This is not to say we don't need changes. This is to say many beginning assumptions need examination.

HereBeforeCoachK
03-02-2018, 03:46 PM
By nature, I am a free market guy, but even the major professional leagues don't operate in a completely open market. For competitive reasons.
.

I love it when someone nails it. Competitive sports are simply not a free market system, purely, nor can they be. When you try and cram a square free market finanicial peg into the round hole of non monetary competition on the court or field, you run into a phony paradigm. This seems to also assume athletic departments are generating profits to hoard the money or pay stock holders dividends. They are not. They pay for a ton of athletes who generate little or nothing.

It suited the Big 3 Auto makers to run the other makers out of business, and the Big 3 would love to shut down any other competition. This is why pro leagues have salary caps and so on...because it really wouldn't do the Red Sox and Yankees much good to run everybody else out of business. Then there would be no golden goose for anyone, period. The same can happen in college sports too....the only schools that can afford what some are talking about are the big "university ofs" who sell 60-70-80 thousand football tickets 8 times a year, and all the other revs that come with that.

Then the goose would be largely gone. Of course, that would end this discussion. Problem solved.

cato
03-02-2018, 04:12 PM
Right now, the top tier is Kansas, Kentucky, Duke, UNC, Villanova, MSU. Nova moved in recently and UConn dropped out. UVA is right on the cusp now but not there yet.

Your order is wrong. And grouping. Duke, UNC, Kansas and Kentucky are alone in a group, and you have to put Duke or UNC first.


That's why fans of one of these teams pay close attention that what the other teams in this tier do. Duke fans pay much closer attention to what Kansas, Kentucky and Nova does than they do to what Florida State or Clemson is doing. Because Duke fans know that those are the teams that Duke is actually competing against.

I pay more attention to each of FSU and Clemson than Kansas, Kentucky and Nova combined. Seasons are made and broken in conference. Tallahassee is a pain. Clemson is always daunting. Those other rotate in and out year by year.

House P
03-02-2018, 04:47 PM
I think your recruiting numbers actually support my point, out of 351 schools in DIV I, the top 10 gets 55% and the top 25 gets 81% of them. And given there are roster limits, and playing time realities that makes it impossible for all the top players to end up in the top few schools every year, which would still apply to any system that allowed boosters to pay students. I'm not sure allowing payments would suddenly change the distribution of top recruits much given how skewed they already are toward the top schools.

I think we mostly agree about the current level of competitive balance. In any given year, it seems that the teams with the best chance of winning a title come from the same group of 5-10 schools. There are another 30-40 schools who are occasionally field legitimate title contenders. My concern would new scenarios (like, perhaps, boosters being able to offer unlimited money to any player at any time) where the "next 30-40" level teams almost never have a chance to be a title contender.

From a recruiting perspective, I would be concerned if the top 10 teams started getting 80-90% the top 25 players. I would also be concerned about transfers. I think the competitive balance could get even worse if the blue blood programs started to poach nearly every player had a breakout season, but wasn't headed to the NBA.

Would it be possible to end up with a scenario where players get 10x more money from boosters to sit on the bench and "train" with UK, KU, or UNC than they would get to start at UVA, Xavier, or Butler?

cato
03-02-2018, 05:14 PM
if wrestlers get paid at Iowa, is it required that they get paid at Wake Forest? (Etc. and so on.)

No.

Also, required how?

Ian
03-02-2018, 05:31 PM
I think we mostly agree about the current level of competitive balance. In any given year, it seems that the teams with the best chance of winning a title come from the same group of 5-10 schools. There are another 30-40 schools who are occasionally field legitimate title contenders. My concern would new scenarios (like, perhaps, boosters being able to offer unlimited money to any player at any time) where the "next 30-40" level teams almost never have a chance to be a title contender.

From a recruiting perspective, I would be concerned if the top 10 teams started getting 80-90% the top 25 players. I would also be concerned about transfers. I think the competitive balance could get even worse if the blue blood programs started to poach nearly every player had a breakout season, but wasn't headed to the NBA.

Would it be possible to end up with a scenario where players get 10x more money from boosters to sit on the bench and "train" with UK, KU, or UNC than they would get to start at UVA, Xavier, or Butler?

I'm not as concerned as you are about this because:

1) Recruit rankings are not the be all and end all. There are always going to be the Juan Dixon, Steph Curry and (hate to bring him up) Luke Mayes of the world that the experts miss, and the Jerod Wards and Renardo Sidney's of the world that turn out to be big busts. Giving teams not winning the recruiting wars a chance to win on the floor.

2) I don't see boosters paying a lot of money to players who won't getting playing time, boosters are not stupid and don't want to spend money for no gain. Conversely teams that are in a lower tier but have playing time available would actually come up with more money from their boosters just because that player will actually make a big difference to that program. And given that ultimate goal of all these players is to go to the NBA, I seriously doubt a top recruit is going to risk not getting playing time and missing their chance at the NBA millions because so they can get an extra 50K.

ChillinDuke
03-02-2018, 05:38 PM
I think we mostly agree about the current level of competitive balance. In any given year, it seems that the teams with the best chance of winning a title come from the same group of 5-10 schools. There are another 30-40 schools who are occasionally field legitimate title contenders. My concern would new scenarios (like, perhaps, boosters being able to offer unlimited money to any player at any time) where the "next 30-40" level teams almost never have a chance to be a title contender.

From a recruiting perspective, I would be concerned if the top 10 teams started getting 80-90% the top 25 players. I would also be concerned about transfers. I think the competitive balance could get even worse if the blue blood programs started to poach nearly every player had a breakout season, but wasn't headed to the NBA.

Would it be possible to end up with a scenario where players get 10x more money from boosters to sit on the bench and "train" with UK, KU, or UNC than they would get to start at UVA, Xavier, or Butler?

Definitely possible on the bolded. And not unreasonable.

There are a lot of considerations here. We've talked about many of them over the years.

One option I'm becoming increasingly comfortable with is the baseball option. For a few reasons.

1) To borrow a term I saw scroll across the bottom line yesterday (but didn't catch whose quote it was), it creates a clear "fork in the road" where the athlete must actively, independently make a decision as to which route to take. College or pros/minor leagues? This fork in the road serves two purposes. First, it makes the athlete singularly accountable for their scenario. No one can any longer blame the system or colleges for encumbering or placing unreasonable restrictions on the athlete. He/she made their own decision and will get whatever good/bad results come to them. Second, it requires no significant changes to the college model. If someone signs up to come play in college, they know exactly what they are getting into. Because they chose that route.

2) It avoids the scenarios House P alludes to above, meaning we no longer have to wade into uncharted territory in the college revamp. Whether boosters are allowed to pay players, agents become involved, transfers are allowed broadly, athletic department budgets, Title IX, etc, etc. All of these carry significant risks as to how the actual change, whatever it/they may be, will ultimately affect the college landscape. The risk in constructing a (still broken) system is mitigated.

3) It shuts up basically everyone, insofar as it puts their money where their mouth is. It's easy to talk broadly about free markets, adequate compensation, the exploitation arguments, etc. Well, then make a choice. I almost guarantee that once you get past the top, say, 15 high school seniors every year, the vast majority of the next, say, 35 will come to college. There's too much risk to not doing so: (1) you're not a surefire pro so you need a backup plan in life, (2) you need more coaching/development to become a pro, (3) going to college might be fun for you, (4) playing in high-profile games with interested fanbases is beneficial and exciting, and on and on. I don't know for certain, but my sense is that baseball will prove this out. Not in absolute numbers but in ratios/percentages. Many top draft picks forego the high school signing bonus and go to college.

4) The NBA might have no choice in the matter. The issues facing college basketball are garnering national attention. And there are so many stakeholders involved, many of which are explicitly public and/or in the best interest of the public, that the NBA may either (1) be mandated to take down their OAD rule or (2) simply decide to remove the rule because the increased scrutiny and media focus is detrimental to the league.

5) there are more, but I'm tired...

So, to bring this back into the spirit of the thread title. If the baseball rule gets adopted in some related form, would we still pay the players? My guess is no - but I'm not totally convinced.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that if we don't adopt the baseball rule (or something close to it), and we explicitly decide the players will be paid, that the resulting construct will be so messy and ugly and complicated and potentially still broken that we won't make any progress. Or we'll get somewhere worse.

Sorry, this wasn't completely on topic - I tried.

- Chillin

Ian
03-02-2018, 06:00 PM
I would also prefer a baseball model. Unfortunately that requires the NBA and sitting around waiting for the NBA seems foolhardy. The NBA likes thing the way they are and have no incentive to change. Colleges need to figure out a solution without the cooperation of the NBA. Even if it's a mess, it may be enough of a mess that forces the NBA to act.

DU82
03-02-2018, 06:17 PM
No.

Also, required how?

My point is that if you wind up paying athletes in "revenue sports", and wrestling is a "revenue sport" at Iowa, does Wake Forest need to pay wrestlers in order to compete. I was riffing off the "revenue sport" issue (knowing that the proposers were considering MBB and FB as the sports.) How do you define "revenue sport" as it may be different at some schools.

Perhaps a better discussion point would be if Duke pays its basketball players, does Wagner have to in order to compete (at their level, of course.)

("Require" was a poor choice of wording in my previous message.)

HereBeforeCoachK
03-02-2018, 06:19 PM
I would also prefer a baseball model. Unfortunately that requires the NBA and sitting around waiting for the NBA seems foolhardy. The NBA likes thing the way they are and have no incentive to change. Colleges need to figure out a solution without the cooperation of the NBA. Even if it's a mess, it may be enough of a mess that forces the NBA to act.

I like the baseball model, and I think Chillin made some good points. However, it's not going to satisfy the hard core pay the players a lot crowd, because you're still going to have really great players being watched by fans of their teams, and paying to do so, etc. If we took the top 100 college players away today and they became pro, the game's revenue picture would hardly change.

There are some people who just will not accept the fact that the college model is that FB and BB generate a shot load of money, and all the players get is cost of attendance (including excellent food, health care, tutoring and instruction in the sport) - which allows the model to produce amazing weight rooms and stadiums and to pay for all the other sports, and of course, it allows coaches to make a ton of money, and so on.

I think the majority of the players get a great deal now, while some probably don't get their "market value" - (whatever that is without the name on the front of the jersey, which guarantees them adoring fans). Some athletes end up not producing any performance close to the monetary value of their education. You gonna dock them that money? Free market employment goes both ways. This is true of life and every industry. But do we want that for college? Open question, but one many don't contemplate.

What I fear is that the Bilas O'Bannon pay the players crowd will get their way, and the result will be a wrecking of a system the generates money...for one that may stop generating so much money. I think it's a wild card how fans, teammates and so on will react if we pay mega money to the top stars coming out of high school.

And let's not forget, if hoops gets blown up, the football will be right behind it, and everything will be totally on its head. After that, here come the Title IX lawsuits and player's unions.

tteettimes
03-02-2018, 06:45 PM
Don’t think for a second that greedy fingers will sit idly by......
And ticket prices will significantly be increased!! In ALL revenue sports!!
That will result in millions!!........hard to believe there’s no common ground

devilsadvocate85
03-02-2018, 06:49 PM
There is a HUGE gap in this discussion. The premise has been that the NCAA, conferences and schools are making huge dollars off the players labor. Yet most of the suggestions are that either the agents and/or boosters should be the ones to pay the players. Ignoring all of the other issues for a moment, why are we talking about paying the players out of a different pot than the one which has everyone so bent out of shape? Agents may be willing to gamble on the future earnings of some very small subset of top players, it certainly won’t be more than maybe 25-30 per year across the entire NCAA. They’ll only hedge against future earnings for players they see to be almost a sure thing. Boosters already fund some varying percentage of scholarships at Division 1 schools. If anyone imagines that they have some huge pot of additional money just waiting to be spent enriching 18 & 19 year olds, I’d like to meet with them to discuss their business strategy. Those funds would come right out of the donations that fund the facilities and scholarships that benefit a couple hundred thousand student athletes. Does anyone else think it’s nuts to destroy a system that benefits so many in order to correct a perceived injustice against a few athletes who are going to be wealthy within 12-24 months?

I believe there are ways to allow an option for athletes to “gamble on” or “invest” in themselves by putting the revenue from their likeness, jersey & signature in a trust while they are in college. There should probably be some portion paid back to the school and/or criteria for a profit sharing model based on number of years with the program, completing a degree, etc. There would also need to be safeguards to insure that the earnings were legitimate (actually generated and not just a payment from some unnamed source), otherwise it would just be a bidding war for top players, which some may welcome, but which I think would be a disaster. My somewhat educated guess is that the vast majority of basketball and football players would take the scholarship, room, board, books & small stipend they currently receive over the risk that their earning power after cost of sales and other expenses isn’t the imaginary fortune that so many seem to think it would be.

HereBeforeCoachK
03-02-2018, 06:52 PM
There is a HUGE gap in this discussion. The premise has been that the NCAA, conferences and schools are making huge dollars off the players labor. Yet most of the suggestions are that either the agents and/or boosters should be the ones to pay the players. Ignoring all of the other issues for a moment, why are we talking about paying the players out of a different pot than the one which has everyone so bent out of shape? Agents may be willing to gamble on the future earnings of some very small subset of top players, it certainly won’t be more than maybe 25-30 per year across the entire NCAA. They’ll only hedge against future earnings for players they see to be almost a sure thing. Boosters already fund some varying percentage of scholarships at Division 1 schools. If anyone imagines that they have some huge pot of additional money just waiting to be spent enriching 18 & 19 year olds, I’d like to meet with them to discuss their business strategy. Those funds would come right out of the donations that fund the facilities and scholarships that benefit a couple hundred thousand student athletes. Does anyone else think it’s nuts to destroy a system that benefits so many in order to correct a perceived injustice against a few athletes who are going to be wealthy within 12-24 months?

I believe there are ways to allow an option for athletes to “gamble on” or “invest” in themselves by putting the revenue from their likeness, jersey & signature in a trust while they are in college. There should probably be some portion paid back to the school and/or criteria for a profit sharing model based on number of years with the program, completing a degree, etc. There would also need to be safeguards to insure that the earnings were legitimate (actually generated and not just a payment from some unnamed source), otherwise it would just be a bidding war for top players, which some may welcome, but which I think would be a disaster. My somewhat educated guess is that the vast majority of basketball and football players would take the scholarship, room, board, books & small stipend they currently receive over the risk that their earning power after cost of sales and other expenses isn’t the imaginary fortune that so many seem to think it would be.

Below are all the mistakes you made above....





......... (END)

ChillinDuke
03-03-2018, 03:55 PM
It strikes me that the "hardcore" pay the players crowd loses a lot of their bargaining power if a baseball esque model is adopted.

You'd essentially strip out the cream of the crop from playing in college every year. Assuming revenues don't materially change, it becomes harder to argue that the players are the ones generating the revenues.

All just speculation on my part. But pointing out that possibility.

- Chillin