California And The NCAA

[hallcity]

The California governor has signed into law (https://sports.yahoo.com/california-let-college-athletes-money-141442308.html)a bill that prevents schools in that state from kicking student-athletes off teams for hiring an agent or accepting money for the use of their images, names or likenesses.

So what does the NCAA do?
1) Disqualify all California teams that have students-athletes on them who are taking money.
2) Allow student-athletes in California to take money but not student-athletes in other states.
3) Change their rules so that student-athletes in all states can take money.

Is there some other option?

If student-athletes in all states can take money, I'd say that Duke gets an even bigger advantage in basketball but an even bigger disadvantage in football. If Nike could have, they probably would have paid Zion big, big bucks to stay at Duke. He got bigger exposure at Duke than he will in the NBA.

[hudlow]

4) Give Cleveland State the death penalty.

[UrinalCake]

I don’t think option 2 is at all a possibility. There’s no way you could have one state on a completely different playing field than the rest of the country. Knowing what we do about the NCAA, I’m quite certain they will choose option 1.

[YmoBeThere]

Knowing what we do about the NCAA, I’m quite certain they will choose option 1.

I'm okay with this.

[RPS]

I'm okay with this.
UCLA, USC, Cal, Stanford, San Diego State, Fresno State, Pepperdine, Long Beach State, USD, St. Mary's, USF, UCSB, Loyola Marymount, Pacific, Santa Clara, UCI, and San Jose State would make a pretty decent league. Who am I missing?

I bet they'd all get better players, too.

[Scorp4me]

Perhaps we could just get rid of California. Full disclosure, I thought this even before they passed this law.

[RPS]

Perhaps we could just get rid of California. Full disclosure, I thought this even before they passed this law.
I'm the first to admit that California brings the crazy every day, and I have lived here for nearly 25 years. However, this new law, which simply allows players to get paid for the use of their own likenesses, makes a ton of sense to me.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I think it's great California got sick of waiting for the NCAA to sort itself out. If it gives California schools a recruiting advantage, oh well.
There's been zero impetus for the NCAA to move on this. The organization serves at the pleasure of member schools, all of whom make big money at the expense of free labor. Why would the NCAA explore this at all without pressure like California is using? A sudden pang of ethics and fairness? The NCAA long ago proved devoid of those.

[AGDukesky]

UCLA, USC, Cal, Stanford, San Diego State, Fresno State, Pepperdine, Long Beach State, USD, St. Mary's, USF, UCSB, Loyola Marymount, Pacific, Santa Clara, UCI, and San Jose State would make a pretty decent league. Who am I missing?

I bet they'd all get better players, too.

The only other school I can think of that excels at a major sport is Cal State Fullerton. Although I’m partial to including Harvey Mudd for all of the potential chants...

[flyingdutchdevil]

UCLA, USC, Cal, Stanford, San Diego State, Fresno State, Pepperdine, Long Beach State, USD, St. Mary's, USF, UCSB, Loyola Marymount, Pacific, Santa Clara, UCI, and San Jose State would make a pretty decent league. Who am I missing?

I bet they'd all get better players, too.

I think this is wonderful for California. Once the NCAA sees students are successfully profiting and amateurism really is dead in basketball and football, they will cave. It's only a matter of time.

Also, if California was a country, wouldn't they have a top 5 economy in the world? There will be a big enough market for these kids to make pleeeeeenty of money in California alone.

[dukelifer]

I don’t think option 2 is at all a possibility. There’s no way you could have one state on a completely different playing field than the rest of the country. Knowing what we do about the NCAA, I’m quite certain they will choose option 1.

It is within the NCAA rights to exclude a team from participating and base that on what they want. But this shines a light on the problem. College sports needs to change. There is a money-making branch and a non-money making branch and they should be separated and treated differently. Lumping men’s tennis with men’s football makes no sense. Until that happens, this is not fixable.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

It is within the NCAA rights to exclude a team from participating and base that on what they want. But this shines a light on the problem. College sports needs to change. There is a money-making branch and a non-money making branch and they should be separated and treated differently. Lumping men’s tennis with men’s football makes no sense. Until that happens, this is not fixable.

Except that as I noted above, the existence of the NCAA depends on the member institutions. If you start eliminating member institutions, you start losing power.
It's going to be very tricky.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

I think it's great California got sick of waiting for the NCAA to sort itself out. If it gives California schools a recruiting advantage, oh well.
There's been zero impetus for the NCAA to move on this. The organization serves at the pleasure of member schools, all of whom make big money at the expense of free labor. Why would the NCAA explore this at all without pressure like California is using? A sudden pang of ethics and fairness? The NCAA long ago proved devoid of those.

It's impossible to have any warm fuzzies towards the corrupt and inept NCAA, which is not much different than a lot of other academic bureaucracies....in that grabbing money is the main thing. It's that way with endowments and academics as well.

But I'm sorry, this is the foundational premise so oft quoted...and it is wrong. It has to be wrong, unless:

A: you assume a college scholarship, and all that goes with it, is worth nothing.
B: that the training they get - for those that go on to play pro - is worth nothing.
C: that the exposure and contacts they get, for those who don't play pro, is worth nothing.
D: that these athletes have better options.

Take whatever position you want to take, but let's be honest in the discussion. Unintended consequences can be a bee-otch.

[unclsam1]

I'm the first to admit that California brings the crazy every day, and I have lived here for nearly 25 years. However, this new law, which simply allows players to get paid for the use of their own likenesses, makes a ton of sense to me.

Have lived in California for 40 years. What was California's motive for doing this? Maybe creating another group of gifted people with a healthy income to tax? What about solving some critical at home problems getting national attention like the largest homeless population of any state or the large central valley falling farther away from meeting federal clean air standards?

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

It's impossible to have any warm fuzzies towards the corrupt and inept NCAA, which is not much different than a lot of other academic bureaucracies...in that grabbing money is the main thing. It's that way with endowments and academics as well.

But I'm sorry, this is the foundational premise so oft quoted...and it is wrong. It has to be wrong, unless:

A: you assume a college scholarship, and all that goes with it, is worth nothing.
B: that the training they get - for those that go on to play pro - is worth nothing.
C: that the exposure and contacts they get, for those who don't play pro, is worth nothing.
D: that these athletes have better options.

Take whatever position you want to take, but let's be honest in the discussion. Unintended consequences can be a bee-otch.

Okay, fine, retract my statement. We can agree to disagree about whether the level of compensation is even remotely proportional to their earning potential. There's lots of other threads to discuss amateurism.

I suspect this puts a lot of inevitable steps into play. Will be fascinating to watch.

[AGDukesky]

It will be interesting to see how many players this impacts and what kinds of dollars we are talking about. Obviously a guy like Zion would be foolish not to go to a California school and make millions for his one year in college. I’m guessing most players will be getting local advertising money and not the “big bucks.”

[House P]

I am not a lawyer and know almost nothing about antitrust law, but it seems that banning teams for complying with the law of their state might not be possible. Here is an article which describes the issues the NCAA might have if they try to ban California schools. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/marcedelman/2019/06/25/ncaa-cant-legally-ban-california-schools-for-allowing-athletes-to-profit-from-their-names-images-and-likenesses/#16469b67273f)

Key quote from the article


"As a private trade association, the National Collegiate Athletic Association is generally free to adopt any bylaws that it wants. But there are two important caveats to the general principle of non-interference with trade association rules. First, a trade association such as the NCAA may not enforce any bylaw that violates federal or state law. Second, a trade association must enact its bylaws in good faith, and in compliance with the 'basic rudiments of due process'.

With these two caveats in mind, there is a strong argument that any attempt by the NCAA to ban California member colleges from competing in postseason events based on their compliance with state laws around names, images and likeness would violate both federal antitrust laws and state common-law rights."

Anyone more familiar with antitrust laws wish to comment?

[YmoBeThere]

I am not a lawyer and know almost nothing about antitrust law, but it seems that banning teams for complying with the law of their state might not be possible. Here is an article which describes the issues the NCAA might have if they try to ban California schools. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/marcedelman/2019/06/25/ncaa-cant-legally-ban-california-schools-for-allowing-athletes-to-profit-from-their-names-images-and-likenesses/#16469b67273f)

Key quote from the article

"As a private trade association, the National Collegiate Athletic Association is generally free to adopt any bylaws that it wants. But there are two important caveats to the general principle of non-interference with trade association rules. First, a trade association such as the NCAA may not enforce any bylaw that violates federal or state law. Second, a trade association must enact its bylaws in good faith, and in compliance with the 'basic rudiments of due process'.

With these two caveats in mind, there is a strong argument that any attempt by the NCAA to ban California member colleges from competing in postseason events based on their compliance with state laws around names, images and likeness would violate both federal antitrust laws and state common-law rights."

Anyone more familiar with antitrust laws wish to comment?

But then couldn't I as Nebraska, create a law saying that scholarship atheletes at state schools cannot compete against atheetes that don't adhere to the NCAA standard. So, now another state has potentially put the issue up. Sure, it may not matter for volleyball but wrestling maybe.

And FWIW, has a California school really mattered in either of the two main revenue sports in a decade?

[uh_no]

I am not a lawyer and know almost nothing about antitrust law, but it seems that banning teams for complying with the law of their state might not be possible. Here is an article which describes the issues the NCAA might have if they try to ban California schools. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/marcedelman/2019/06/25/ncaa-cant-legally-ban-california-schools-for-allowing-athletes-to-profit-from-their-names-images-and-likenesses/#16469b67273f)

Key quote from the article


"As a private trade association, the National Collegiate Athletic Association is generally free to adopt any bylaws that it wants. But there are two important caveats to the general principle of non-interference with trade association rules. First, a trade association such as the NCAA may not enforce any bylaw that violates federal or state law. Second, a trade association must enact its bylaws in good faith, and in compliance with the 'basic rudiments of due process'.

With these two caveats in mind, there is a strong argument that any attempt by the NCAA to ban California member colleges from competing in postseason events based on their compliance with state laws around names, images and likeness would violate both federal antitrust laws and state common-law rights."

Anyone more familiar with antitrust laws wish to comment?

there are exemptions for sports leagues in antitrust laws. to what degree that would apply here is above my armchair lawyer rating

[RPS]

This is a well-worn path, so I'll respond here this once and let it rest.


But I'm sorry, this is the foundational premise so oft quoted...and it is wrong. It has to be wrong, unless:

A: you assume a college scholarship, and all that goes with it, is worth nothing.Nobody claims it's worth nothing, but it costs the universities almost nothing: other than direct program costs, just room and board plus, perhaps, some minor marginal cost for a few more students. Moreover, it's not how the majority of high-end college athletes would prefer to get paid. For many, they may as well be paid in bushels of corn.


B: that the training they get - for those that go on to play pro - is worth nothing.It isn't. But it's far less valuable than what they could get from a real minor league system, if for no other reason than there wouldn't be time and practice restrictions (and they wouldn't have to worry about academics).


C: that the exposure and contacts they get, for those who don't play pro, is worth nothing.It isn't. But what's wrong with there being a choice?


D: that these athletes have better options.I'll resist the plantation analogy, but the current system is appallingly paternalistic. The (predominantly white) coaches and administrators make a ton of money (and a lot more than they'd make if labor wasn't so cheap -- e.g., seven figures for some dope to run a bowl game nobody cares about) while the players (predominantly non-white) have their compensation restricted and, what they do get, is in-kind. It's not a good look, to say the least.


Take whatever position you want to take, but let's be honest in the discussion. Unintended consequences can be a bee-otch.If we're being honest, let's recognize that the NBA (like the NFL) generally loves the current system because it provides a free minor league system and free exposure for incoming players. The universities love it because it provides big benefits directly (television revenue, ticket sales, etc.) and indirectly (alumni giving, alumni and student engagement, and in Duke's case, a bigger applicant pool). The only group not satisfied with the way things are are the players. Note that they are, disproportionately, young, poor, and minority. What does that tell you? For starters, it explains why "these athletes [don't] have better options."

[TampaDuke]

I'll resist the plantation analogy, but the current system is appallingly paternalistic. The (predominantly white) coaches and administrators make a ton of money (and a lot more than they'd make if labor wasn't so cheap -- e.g., seven figures for some dope to run a bowl game nobody cares about) while the players (predominantly non-white) have their compensation restricted and, what they do get, is in-kind. It's not a good look, to say the least.

* * *
If we're being honest, let's recognize that the NBA (like the NFL) generally loves the current system because it provides a free minor league system and free exposure for incoming players. The universities love it because it provides big benefits directly (television revenue, ticket sales, etc.) and indirectly (alumni giving, alumni and student engagement, and in Duke's case, a bigger applicant pool). The only group not satisfied with the way things are the players. Note that they are, disproportionately, young, poor, and minority. What does that tell you? For starters, it explains why "these athletes [don't] have better options."

I guess it depends on what is meant by predominantly and disproportionately, but the NCAA reported (http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/diversity-research) that white players accounted for 39% of NCAA basketball players in 2018, with black players making up 45% (and 16% reported as "other"). In football, white athletes accounted for 47% while black athletes accounted for 39% (and 14% listed as other).

[Bay Area Duke Fan]

As is often the case, California is out in front and leading the nation. The law takes effect in 2023. Other states will follow. The NCAA will be forced to accept this.

[hallcity]

I'm trying to imagine how this would work. It's easy enough if the player is getting money for the use of his name on the back of jerseys sold at the student bookstore. That's going to be fairly minimal money in all but a very few cases. It's also easy enough if the player endorses a car dealership. That's going to be a simple transaction between the athlete and the car dealership. The problem would be if the car dealership is owned by a supporter of the university and the transaction isn't intended to promote the dealership but the athletic team. A business owner could make it known that he or she will pay at least $10,000 a year to each player on a football scholarship and $50,000 a year to starters for image and likeness in order to help the school attract athletes. A school would have no control over this. An even bigger problem is shoe contracts. Under the California bill, the student athlete would be free to negotiate a deal with a shoe company but would be forbidden to wear the shoe of a competing company while on the field or court so what would a college athlete's shoe contract mean other than a promise to keep wearing the shoe after leaving college? Does this devolve into a situation where the schools get no cash from the shoe companies but, instead, the shoe companies provide slush funds that can be used to attract athletes?

As I understand this California bill, it seems to advantage schools with wealthy alums and schools with high public exposure. Athletes attending those schools would be able to get lots of money either from alums or shoe companies. Those schools already have an advantage. This bill would give them a greater advantage.

[chrishoke]

Absent any regulation, how will schools and boosters use this opening in the recruiting process?

[cato]

It's impossible to have any warm fuzzies towards the corrupt and inept NCAA, which is not much different than a lot of other academic bureaucracies...in that grabbing money is the main thing. It's that way with endowments and academics as well.

But I'm sorry, this is the foundational premise so oft quoted...and it is wrong. It has to be wrong, unless:

A: you assume a college scholarship, and all that goes with it, is worth nothing.
B: that the training they get - for those that go on to play pro - is worth nothing.
C: that the exposure and contacts they get, for those who don't play pro, is worth nothing.
D: that these athletes have better options.

Take whatever position you want to take, but let's be honest in the discussion. Unintended consequences can be a bee-otch.

None of your assertions are true. You do not have to assume any of those things to determine whether the players are providing free labor. You only have to look at the employment status of the players — are they paid employees entitled to all of the protections of employees or are they unpaid amateurs who get very valuable perks?

The argument that you seem to be making is that the overall compensation is fair. I think that if that were true, the illegal payments would be must less prevalent.

But to me the fairness of compensating players is more important than the unintended consequences to college football and basketball.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Jay Bilas (I know) had some good points on the radio this morning. I won't dig into all the details, and I am sure some will write it off due to the source, but the nut of his point was "why shouldn't college sports be a meritocracy off the floor as well as on the floor?" Why should a paternalistic organization say "no, you kids can't have the same opportunity for jobs and contracts that literally every other human has in our free market system?"
I don't necessarily agree with that strong of a statement, but it's worth considering in this context. Why do we find it acceptable for some governing body to restrict the earning potential of 18-22 year old kids?

[SoCalDukeFan]

Once again California is leading the nation and other states will follow.

Moreover, I think many college athletes are being paid now. I have talked to some pros who admit they were paid, maybe not directly but Grandma's mortgage was taken care of, Uncle Frank got a new job, etc.

There will be unintended consequences but that often happens with change.

The real problem is the NCAA. Need to get their head out of the sand and come up with rules that work rather than let state legislatures try to do their job.

SoCal

[flyingdutchdevil]

Jay Bilas (I know) had some good points on the radio this morning. I won't dig into all the details, and I am sure some will write it off due to the source, but the nut of his point was "why shouldn't college sports be a meritocracy off the floor as well as on the floor?" Why should a paternalistic organization say "no, you kids can't have the same opportunity for jobs and contracts that literally every other human has in our free market system?"
I don't necessarily agree with that strong of a statement, but it's worth considering in this context. Why do we find it acceptable for some governing body to restrict the earning potential of 18-22 year old kids?

Because we love the idea of amateurism. Because we somehow think that amateur sports are more "pure" than professional sports. Because we like the way things "used" to be and long for that time.

I get it; folks think 4 years playing basketball and earning a degree worth ~$250,000 is equivalent to generating tens upon tens of millions for institutions (universities, NCAA, CBS, etc). But today's world has changed where more compensation and more ownership is with the "employees" moreso than the "institutions".

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Once again California is leading the nation and other states will follow.

Moreover, I think many college athletes are being paid now. I have talked to some pros who admit they were paid, maybe not directly but Grandma's mortgage was taken care of, Uncle Frank got a new job, etc.

There will be unintended consequences but that often happens with change.

The real problem is the NCAA. Need to get their head out of the sand and come up with rules that work rather than let state legislatures try to do their job.

SoCal

Oh, I agree it cannot be stopped. This will lead to a more general pay the players movement, above and beyond likeness endorsements. And I agree with unintended consequences statement... My prediction here? This will kill the goose that laid the golden eggs, and in a number of years, there will be far fewer eggs and they will be far less golden - except for a handful of mega schools, and Duke will cease to be a major power of any kind. This may not take that long. If the Final Four ends up with 4 schools in California, then millions will cease to care...because there is simply no way small population areas will ever compete. It will turn college into about 30 big time teams, which not coincidentally is the size of most pro sports leagues. Enjoy it.

Meanwhile, non revenue sports will head back to club status. The main problem is Jay Bilas and a few around here don't want to discuss the realities here. The realities are that very few schools (by percentage) turn a large profit on athletic departments...and even in large schools that turn a profit, it's all one, maybe two sports out of many dozen that turn that profit. Many wanted to slam Boeheim last year when he spoke truth to this...but he did.

Unintended consequences? Like you've never seen. A total sea change. And again, I'm not defending the NCAA in any way - other than to say that all of Big E is a money grab, not just athletics. And all this is fine, except the Jay Bilas' of the world don't want to debate it honestly. You know, like the fact that this will ultimately make it impossible for Duke to compete with the Cheats. You cannot ultimately defeat demographics, and this makes that even more powerful.

[TampaDuke]

Jay Bilas (I know) had some good points on the radio this morning. I won't dig into all the details, and I am sure some will write it off due to the source, but the nut of his point was "why shouldn't college sports be a meritocracy off the floor as well as on the floor?" Why should a paternalistic organization say "no, you kids can't have the same opportunity for jobs and contracts that literally every other human has in our free market system?"
I don't necessarily agree with that strong of a statement, but it's worth considering in this context. Why do we find it acceptable for some governing body to restrict the earning potential of 18-22 year old kids?

As an attempt, albeit a cumbersome and frustrating one, to keep the playing field level?

[tteettimes]

To quote.....” and the inmates will run the asylum”

[PackMan97]

But I'm sorry, this is the foundational premise so oft quoted...and it is wrong. It has to be wrong, unless:

A: you assume a college scholarship, and all that goes with it, is worth nothing.
B: that the training they get - for those that go on to play pro - is worth nothing.
C: that the exposure and contacts they get, for those who don't play pro, is worth nothing.
D: that these athletes have better options.


A: Given the NCAA's position on an institution's responsibility to actually educate their athletes, I think this argument is a non-starter. We can safely assume that a free college education is worth pretty much nothing in many cases. See UNC.

B: Yes, it's worth something. But the NCAA strictly and artificially limits that amount of training and coaching they can receive.

C: Yes, that is worth something. However, if they are not able to control their own likeness and the exposure is far less than they'd get absent NCAA rules.

D: Quite often they don't have better options. Is that the reason to shackle them to the NCAA ways of doing business?

Why is the labor of a Daniel Jones worth nothing one year when he's at Duke and then the next year it's worth about $6 million? Why is the labor of Zion Williamson worth nothing one year when he's at Duke and the next year it's worth $10 million and that's before counting all his endorsement deals with Coke, Nike and others?

The days of using unpaid athletes to enrich the athletic departments and NCAA are nearing an end. Get on board or just quit watching.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

As an attempt, albeit a cumbersome and frustrating one, to keep the playing field level?

Do you see an even playing field anywhere in D1 sports?

[PackMan97]

Meanwhile, non revenue sports will head back to club status. The main problem is Jay Bilas and a few around here don't want to discuss the realities here. The realities are that very few schools (by percentage) turn a large profit on athletic departments...and even in large schools that turn a profit, it's all one, maybe two sports out of many dozen that turn that profit. Many wanted to slam Boeheim last year when he spoke truth to this...but he did.


OR.....

Maybe schools will stop spending hundreds of millions on stadiums, dorms, training facilities, practice facilities, etc. Maybe instead of a coaching staff making a combined $15 million, they make $5 million.

Very few schools turn a profit because very few schools try to turn a profit. The goal is to use what you have, not save it under the mattress.

[Steven43]

I'm the first to admit that California brings the crazy every day, and I have lived here for nearly 25 years. However, this new law, which simply allows players to get paid for the use of their own likenesses, makes a ton of sense to me.

It is the colleges which provide everything for the so-called “marketable” players in basketball and football ( outside of those two sports the average fan does not know who any of the other college athletes even are ) to show themselves and get known to the public. Without the colleges establishing and supporting their programs (Duke Basketball, Alabama Football, et. al) the players would not have any market to speak of.

The majority of fans watch college sports because of the traditions and the fact that they are alums, not for the individual players. Regardless of who is throwing the pass or making the tackle fans would still be watching. The players are interchangeable and transient, the program is eternal. This whole thing is much ado about nothing.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

The majority of fans watch college sports because of the traditions and the fact that they are alums, not for the individual players. Regardless of who is throwing the pass or making the tackle fans would still be watching. The players are interchangeable and transient, the program is eternal.

That's true on this board to a large extent. But not on the macro level. Lots more people tuned in to watch Duke last season because of Zion, not because of the tradition and the school.




This whole thing is much ado about nothing.

No,it's much ado about millions and millions of dollars.

[Steven43]

That's true on this board to a large extent. But not on the macro level. Lots more people tuned in to watch Duke last season because of Zion, not because of the tradition and the school.



No,it's much ado about millions and millions of dollars.
Nope. People watch Duke Basketball regardless. And they’re going to watch Duke Basketball this year without Zion. And if there weren’t renowned programs like Duke for Zion to benefit from and market himself, hardly anyone would have watched him play last year. That’s a fact. Nobody was going to tune in to watch him play for Podunk State.

Oh, and those millions and millions of dollars of which you speak should rightfully go to the colleges which put up the cost for everything for these players to showcase themselves. Nobody was watching these players when they were in high school. It is the colleges which allow them to be seen by the masses, and it is the colleges who should be compensated for doing so.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Nope. People watch Duke Basketball regardless. And they’re going to watch Duke Basketball this year without Zion. And if there weren’t renowned programs like Duke for Zion to benefit from and market himself, hardly anyone would have watched him play last year. That’s a fact. Nobody was going to tune in to watch him play for Podunk State.

Oh, and those millions and millions of dollars of which you speak should rightfully go to the colleges which put up the cost for everything for these players to showcase themselves. Nobody was watching these players when they were in high school. It is the colleges which allow them to be seen by the masses, and it is the colleges who should be compensated for doing so.

People here will watch Duke basketball regardless. Do you really don't think that Zion on SportsCenter didn't drive people to watch more Duke games? Viewership here was probably close to 100% in the ill-fated 1995 season, and will be next season too.

Also, how can you say that if a player has the ability to trade on his image for a local car dealership, that those dollars should go to the college? It's outside money going to these players in theory, not college money.

Either way, it's definitely not ado about "nothing." Not sure how you can argue that millions of dollars either going to athletes or not would qualify as nothing.

[Steven43]

People here will watch Duke basketball regardless. Do you really don't think that Zion on SportsCenter didn't drive people to watch more Duke games? Viewership here was probably close to 100% in the ill-fated 1995 season, and will be next season too.

Also, how can you say that if a player has the ability to trade on his image for a local car dealership, that those dollars should go to the college? It's outside money going to these players in theory, not college money.

Either way, it's definitely not ado about "nothing." Not sure how you can argue that millions of dollars either going to athletes or not would qualify as nothing.
I don’t have time right now to get into all this in detail. Maybe I will later tonight. Anyway, it’s an interesting discussion.

[RPS]

It is the colleges which provide everything for the so-called “marketable” players in basketball and football ( outside of those two sports the average fan does not know who any of the other college athletes even are ) to show themselves and get known to the public. Without the colleges establishing and supporting their programs (Duke Basketball, Alabama Football, et. al) the players would not have any market to speak of.
To summarize: (a) The players have no market without the schools; (b) Only the schools have properly earned any money, and it's a boatload; and (c) We must prohibit the players from being paid via draconian rules that punish players for [checks notes] appearing in a charity calendar in order to prevent them from cashing in on that market that doesn't exist.

Got it.

[Steven43]

To summarize: (a) The players have no market without the schools; (b) Only the schools have properly earned any money, and it's a boatload; and (c) We must prohibit the players from being paid via draconian rules that punish players for [checks notes] appearing in a charity calendar in order to prevent them from cashing in on that market that doesn't exist.

Got it.

They ARE being paid — through the colleges spending millions upon millions to support athletics programs FOR THE STUDENT-ATHLETES for such things as coaching (for their specific sport, for nutrition needs, for tailored workouts, etc.), tuition, books, computers, food, healthcare (including basic needs, surgery, rehab, psychiatric counseling, etc.), medications, tutoring, room and board, travel costs, and, perhaps most pertinent to this discussion, MARKETING.

Without the colleges the student-athletes have no platform whatsoever. None. The colleges provide EVERYTHING. That absolutely constitutes payment, whether you consider it as such is irrelevant.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

They ARE being paid — through the colleges spending millions upon millions to support athletics programs FOR THE STUDENT-ATHLETES for such things as coaching (for their specific sport, for nutrition needs, for tailored workouts, etc.), tuition, books, computers, food, healthcare (including basic needs, surgery, rehab, psychiatric counseling, etc.), medications, tutoring, room and board, travel costs, and, perhaps most pertinent to this discussion, MARKETING.

Without the colleges the student-athletes have no platform whatsoever. None. The colleges provide EVERYTHING. That absolutely constitutes payment, whether you consider it as such is irrelevant.

What damage do you see in athletes seeking their own compensation beyond tuition room and board? Again, this money is NOT coming out of college pockets, so it isn't affecting Olympic sports. If it comes from boosters, car dealerships, or shoe companies - well, okay.

[75Crazie]

Without the colleges the student-athletes have no platform whatsoever. None. The colleges provide EVERYTHING. That absolutely constitutes payment, whether you consider it as such is irrelevant.
Providing a service for work effort is not at all the same as paying remuneration for that work effort. Otherwise, company workers paid only in scrip would have no cause at all to complain.

[PackMan97]

Nobody was watching these players when they were in high school.

Seriously? The first HS highlight tape I came across. Looks like packed gyms, lots of media and lots of folks on their phones. Not to mention the AAU circuit (which is also loaded with $$$$). The hype for players like Zion, for Lebron, Kobe and others is OFF THE CHARTS. Now, maybe the kid ranked #75 doesn't have much of a market in high school, but for the top players...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYnpO03crr8

[Pghdukie]

Add Pennsylvania to the growing list of state that will introduce legislation based on California's.

[Stray Gator]

. . . There will be unintended consequences but that often happens with change. . . . SoCal

As an old-timer who admittedly clings to the idealistic notion that intercollegiate athletics should be founded on the concept of a level playing field, and ultimately depends on the enforcement of fairness in competition, I'm afraid that those who advocate this kind of change are seriously underestimating the consequences. While I recognize that the rules designed to assure competitive fairness are not uniformly followed or enforced, and that some schools have succeeded in circumventing the rules to some extent, those rules -- and the risk of punishment for their violation -- have at least enabled us to limit the degree to which any schools have been able to gain a substantial, sustained advantage. Certainly, there are "elite" programs in every sport; but even the top programs go through periods of decline, and we still see teams that have not been among the traditionally prominent rise to challenge for championships.

I fear that the confluence of three recent developments -- two of which have been implemented for the ostensible purpose of promoting fairness to individual athletes -- now threatens to destroy any semblance of competitive fairness in the realm of intercollegiate athletics:

1. The transfer portal
2. The law allowing individual players to be compensated for the use of their name or image
3. The repeal of the 80% federal income tax charitable deduction for contributions to college athletic programs

It requires no great leaps of the imagination to foresee how those schools with the most resources can parlay these changes into an insurmountable competitive advantage. First, the program can build a "war chest" simply by telling boosters to redirect their no-longer-deductible contributions to a business "front," which is created and employed primarily as a conduit for payments to players for their endorsements. Then the program can go out and offer top-rated recruits a generous sum in the form of compensation for endorsing the booster-funded business. Finally, if any recruited player is injured or fails to perform as expected, the program can fill those needs by enticing star players at other schools to enter the transfer portal and join the team in exchange for a tidy sum. Within a few years, I believe there would be only a small handful of programs that emerge as perennial national championship contenders; the rest would merely be vying for the opportunity to earn a payday as the homecoming cupcake.

Of course, there are other ways in which the new system could permit, or even encourage, an abuse of the concept of fairness in competition. For example, what's to prevent an individual star player from offering a teammate a share of his endorsement bounty if the teammate will agree to provide the star more scoring opportunities? Or, worse yet, how long before a star player on Team A offers a defender on Team B some of his endorsement income, or "opportunities" to keep it in compliance with the law, for the opponent's agreement to be "less aggressive"? Sorry if I sound cynical, but I believe any positives that come from this measure designed to provide "fair compensation" to a small percentage of individual college players will be far outweighed by the detrimental impact on the "fair competition" element of the game, because the corrupting influence of money is likely to undermine the integrity of the game, which will in turn erode the interest of ordinary fans in the sport itself.

[Steven43]

Providing a service for work effort is not at all the same as paying remuneration for that work effort. Otherwise, company workers paid only in scrip would have no cause at all to complain.

OK, let’s have the colleges stop spending a penny on these student-athletes. They have to 100% pay their own way for EVERYTHING they receive. And also somehow try to put a dollar figure on the marketing that the colleges are providing for them due to the platform the colleges provide. And then let’s see these athletes try to get compensation because they’re soooooo very marketable and see if that compensation even comes close to paying for all of the costs the colleges previously paid. I think we all know the answer to this one.

[Steven43]

Providing a service for work effort is not at all the same as paying remuneration for that work effort. Otherwise, company workers paid only in scrip would have no cause at all to complain.

Okay, let’s have the colleges stop spending a penny on these student-athletes. The student-athletes have to 100% pay for EVERYTHING they receive. And also somehow try to put a dollar figure on the marketing that the colleges are providing for them due to the platform the colleges provide. And then let’s see these athletes try to get compensation because they’re soooooo very marketable and see if that compensation even comes close to paying for all of the costs the colleges previously paid.

I think we all know the obvious answer to how this would turn out. Every single student-athlete would suddenly be like “Hey, guys, we didn’t really mean it. Can we go back to the old system........please?”

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Okay, let’s have the colleges stop spending a penny on these student-athletes. The student-athletes have to 100% pay for EVERYTHING they receive. And also somehow try to put a dollar figure on the marketing that the colleges are providing for them due to the platform the colleges provide. And then let’s see these athletes try to get compensation because they’re soooooo very marketable and see if that compensation even comes close to paying for all of the costs the colleges previously paid.

I think we all know the obvious answer to how this would turn out. Every single student-athlete would suddenly be like “Hey, guys, we didn’t really mean it. Can we go back to the old system....please?”

Or, we could stick to the subject at hand and not rehash this same tired argument.

There's so many threads about amateurism, the value of a scholarship, whether schools/boosters/shoe companies should pay athletes...

[PackMan97]

As an old-timer who admittedly clings to the idealistic notion that intercollegiate athletics should be founded on the concept of a level playing field, and ultimately depends on the enforcement of fairness in competition, I'm afraid that those who advocate this kind of change are seriously underestimating the consequences.

I think we can dispense with the fairness argument. Some schools are allowed to get away with anything.

[Steven43]

Or, we could stick to the subject at hand and not rehash this same tired argument.

There's so many threads about amateurism, the value of a scholarship, whether schools/boosters/shoe companies should pay athletes...

I don’t know, Mtn. I think it’s all intertwined.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I don’t know, Mtn. I think it’s all intertwined.

It absolutely is. But it's also well worn territory here. We all know where we stand. This California law is something new and interesting, and I'm curious where posters stand on the possible effects in the Pac 10 and around the country. I already know where most everyone stands on whether players should be paid.

[Chicago 1995]

It absolutely is. But it's also well worn territory here. We all know where we stand. This California law is something new and interesting, and I'm curious where posters stand on the possible effects in the Pac 10 and around the country. I already know where most everyone stands on whether players should be paid.

Effects around the country? There are already like six or seven states that will take votes on bills like the one that passed in California in places like Florida, New York and Minnesota. Florida's would go into effect in 2021, even. What's going to happen is that the NCAA is going to have to change, now. Emmert's lost the fight for the old system. Change is here or the NCAA will cease to exist as a chartering organization and another that will work within the new rules required by states will take its place.

As for some of the other points in the thread:

(1) I think the idea that this will lead to some sort of massive gulf between the haves and have nots ignores where college sports already is. There's already a massive, largely entrenched gulf. Florida State football isn't losing because it's not bringing in talent or because it isn't committing resources to the football program. It's losing because they made a bad hire. There are maybe 15 schools that can win a football championship. That's where we're already at, and I'd pose that at the vast majority of those 15 (and of the 25 that would do anything to be part of that 15) are already compensating their student athletes beyond what is permitted. Boosters aren't just writing checks for football coaches. Shoe companies aren't just giving teams gear in line with their school contracts. I think that's the world we are in -- not the world we are suddenly jumping into.

(2) While I know that it has been debated in other threads, knowing what we know about the academic scandals that pop up regularly around college sports, as well as the limitations as to majors put on student athletes by many programs, I wouldn't argue that a scholarship education necessarily has much value at all. There's no question it can -- but there's good reason to think that's the exception, not the rule.

(3) Zion had over 1M Instragram followers before he came to Duke. He's the exception, but the idea that players have no platform without colleges is outdated. You can watch top HS basketball recruits play throughout the season on ESPN and through a number of streaming sites. College is the traditional launching pad, but it isn't the only launching pad.

(4) I can't wrap my head around defending a system where Cal gets $10M a year in salary and his players (the majority of which he does little to develop, IMO) get nothing. Heck, the strength and conditioning coach at Iowa gets $800K per year. The kids he sent to the hospital because of acute overexertion don't get a penny, but Doyle gets $800K. That's not a system that should be perpetuated. Sorry.

(5) Might this spell the end for Duke a basketball power? Maybe. Then again, we've got a pretty affluent fan base. Guess it's just a question of how much we want to be good in basketball? Or maybe we become a golf and lacrosse powerhouse? Who knows. Nothing is guaranteed other than change. Enjoy what we've had and what we still have rather than worry about it not always being there, I guess. Nostalgia, more often than not, is toxic it seems.

[WiJoe]

As an old-timer who admittedly clings to the idealistic notion that intercollegiate athletics should be founded on the concept of a level playing field, and ultimately depends on the enforcement of fairness in competition, I'm afraid that those who advocate this kind of change are seriously underestimating the consequences. While I recognize that the rules designed to assure competitive fairness are not uniformly followed or enforced, and that some schools have succeeded in circumventing the rules to some extent, those rules -- and the risk of punishment for their violation -- have at least enabled us to limit the degree to which any schools have been able to gain a substantial, sustained advantage. Certainly, there are "elite" programs in every sport; but even the top programs go through periods of decline, and we still see teams that have not been among the traditionally prominent rise to challenge for championships.

I fear that the confluence of three recent developments -- two of which have been implemented for the ostensible purpose of promoting fairness to individual athletes -- now threatens to destroy any semblance of competitive fairness in the realm of intercollegiate athletics:

1. The transfer portal
2. The law allowing individual players to be compensated for the use of their name or image
3. The repeal of the 80% federal income tax charitable deduction for contributions to college athletic programs

It requires no great leaps of the imagination to foresee how those schools with the most resources can parlay these changes into an insurmountable competitive advantage. First, the program can build a "war chest" simply by telling boosters to redirect their no-longer-deductible contributions to a business "front," which is created and employed primarily as a conduit for payments to players for their endorsements. Then the program can go out and offer top-rated recruits a generous sum in the form of compensation for endorsing the booster-funded business. Finally, if any recruited player is injured or fails to perform as expected, the program can fill those needs by enticing star players at other schools to enter the transfer portal and join the team in exchange for a tidy sum. Within a few years, I believe there would be only a small handful of programs that emerge as perennial national championship contenders; the rest would merely be vying for the opportunity to earn a payday as the homecoming cupcake.

Of course, there are other ways in which the new system could permit, or even encourage, an abuse of the concept of fairness in competition. For example, what's to prevent an individual star player from offering a teammate a share of his endorsement bounty if the teammate will agree to provide the star more scoring opportunities? Or, worse yet, how long before a star player on Team A offers a defender on Team B some of his endorsement income, or "opportunities" to keep it in compliance with the law, for the opponent's agreement to be "less aggressive"? Sorry if I sound cynical, but I believe any positives that come from this measure designed to provide "fair compensation" to a small percentage of individual college players will be far outweighed by the detrimental impact on the "fair competition" element of the game, because the corrupting influence of money is likely to undermine the integrity of the game, which will in turn erode the interest of ordinary fans in the sport itself.

post of the year, if not decade.

[Chicago 1995]

As an old-timer who admittedly clings to the idealistic notion that intercollegiate athletics should be founded on the concept of a level playing field, and ultimately depends on the enforcement of fairness in competition, I'm afraid that those who advocate this kind of change are seriously underestimating the consequences. While I recognize that the rules designed to assure competitive fairness are not uniformly followed or enforced, and that some schools have succeeded in circumventing the rules to some extent, those rules -- and the risk of punishment for their violation -- have at least enabled us to limit the degree to which any schools have been able to gain a substantial, sustained advantage. Certainly, there are "elite" programs in every sport; but even the top programs go through periods of decline, and we still see teams that have not been among the traditionally prominent rise to challenge for championships.

I fear that the confluence of three recent developments -- two of which have been implemented for the ostensible purpose of promoting fairness to individual athletes -- now threatens to destroy any semblance of competitive fairness in the realm of intercollegiate athletics:

1. The transfer portal
2. The law allowing individual players to be compensated for the use of their name or image
3. The repeal of the 80% federal income tax charitable deduction for contributions to college athletic programs

It requires no great leaps of the imagination to foresee how those schools with the most resources can parlay these changes into an insurmountable competitive advantage. First, the program can build a "war chest" simply by telling boosters to redirect their no-longer-deductible contributions to a business "front," which is created and employed primarily as a conduit for payments to players for their endorsements. Then the program can go out and offer top-rated recruits a generous sum in the form of compensation for endorsing the booster-funded business. Finally, if any recruited player is injured or fails to perform as expected, the program can fill those needs by enticing star players at other schools to enter the transfer portal and join the team in exchange for a tidy sum. Within a few years, I believe there would be only a small handful of programs that emerge as perennial national championship contenders; the rest would merely be vying for the opportunity to earn a payday as the homecoming cupcake.

Welcome to the last 25 years of collegiate football, at at minimum. The concentration of elite talent a limited number of schools is nothing new, nor is the use of transfers and poaching from smaller schools. Whether it is Vernon Adams running the offense for the Ducks or Cam Johnson or Makai Mason hitting threes for a new school in the NCAA tourney, we're already there.


Of course, there are other ways in which the new system could permit, or even encourage, an abuse of the concept of fairness in competition. For example, what's to prevent an individual star player from offering a teammate a share of his endorsement bounty if the teammate will agree to provide the star more scoring opportunities? Or, worse yet, how long before a star player on Team A offers a defender on Team B some of his endorsement income, or "opportunities" to keep it in compliance with the law, for the opponent's agreement to be "less aggressive"? Sorry if I sound cynical, but I believe any positives that come from this measure designed to provide "fair compensation" to a small percentage of individual college players will be far outweighed by the detrimental impact on the "fair competition" element of the game, because the corrupting influence of money is likely to undermine the integrity of the game, which will in turn erode the interest of ordinary fans in the sport itself.

This sounds great, but if it was a real risk, why wouldn't it have happened in professional sports already? The gulf in compensation between an established star and a rookie is such that the incentives you pose exist above would exist in pro sports too, and if there's ever been an instance of anything like this happening, I don't recall hearing about it.

[duke4ever19]

Nobody was watching these players when they were in high school. It is the colleges which allow them to be seen by the masses, and it is the colleges who should be compensated for doing so.

How can you say this when we had Zion Williamson and RJ Barrett on the team last year? EVERYONE knew who these two guys were before they put on Duke blue.

We are talking millions of views for high school mix-tapes. Heck, sometimes it was just highlights from a single high school game, and yet it would still rack up views. Perhaps you don't spend any time watching such videos, but high school basketball game highlights involving high-level prospects are very popular.

Take Mac McClung for instance: I saw more high school game footage of Georgetown's Mac McClung than Georgetown fans did watching him as a freshman this past year. McClung is an example of a guy who might actually get less attention in college than he did in high school.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Effects around the country? There are already like six or seven states that will take votes on bills like the one that passed in California in places like Florida, New York and Minnesota. Florida's would go into effect in 2021, even. What's going to happen is that the NCAA is going to have to change, now. Emmert's lost the fight for the old system. Change is here or the NCAA will cease to exist as a chartering organization and another that will work within the new rules required by states will take its place.

As for some of the other points in the thread:

(1) I think the idea that this will lead to some sort of massive gulf between the haves and have nots ignores where college sports already is. There's already a massive, largely entrenched gulf. Florida State football isn't losing because it's not bringing in talent or because it isn't committing resources to the football program. It's losing because they made a bad hire. There are maybe 15 schools that can win a football championship. That's where we're already at, and I'd pose that at the vast majority of those 15 (and of the 25 that would do anything to be part of that 15) are already compensating their student athletes beyond what is permitted. Boosters aren't just writing checks for football coaches. Shoe companies aren't just giving teams gear in line with their school contracts. I think that's the world we are in -- not the world we are suddenly jumping into.

(2) While I know that it has been debated in other threads, knowing what we know about the academic scandals that pop up regularly around college sports, as well as the limitations as to majors put on student athletes by many programs, I wouldn't argue that a scholarship education necessarily has much value at all. There's no question it can -- but there's good reason to think that's the exception, not the rule.

(3) Zion had over 1M Instragram followers before he came to Duke. He's the exception, but the idea that players have no platform without colleges is outdated. You can watch top HS basketball recruits play throughout the season on ESPN and through a number of streaming sites. College is the traditional launching pad, but it isn't the only launching pad.

(4) I can't wrap my head around defending a system where Cal gets $10M a year in salary and his players (the majority of which he does little to develop, IMO) get nothing. Heck, the strength and conditioning coach at Iowa gets $800K per year. The kids he sent to the hospital because of acute overexertion don't get a penny, but Doyle gets $800K. That's not a system that should be perpetuated. Sorry.

(5) Might this spell the end for Duke a basketball power? Maybe. Then again, we've got a pretty affluent fan base. Guess it's just a question of how much we want to be good in basketball? Or maybe we become a golf and lacrosse powerhouse? Who knows. Nothing is guaranteed other than change. Enjoy what we've had and what we still have rather than worry about it not always being there, I guess. Nostalgia, more often than not, is toxic it seems.

Re: #5 - Or, Duke and other academically minded universities form their own league of true amateur athletes, leaving behind their light blue friends. It sure would test Steven43's theory that people watch for the names on the front of the jerseys.
Again,I think viewership on this board would remain strong, but the ESPN exposure would drop and so would the casual fan.
For the record, I would have zero problem with these particular repercussions.

[SoCalDukeFan]

As an old-timer who admittedly clings to the idealistic notion that intercollegiate athletics should be founded on the concept of a level playing field,

I am also an old timer who clings to that notion. However the organization that should be concerned about a level playing field is the NCAA, not state legislatures. The NCAA can say that schools in the states that permit compensation are ineligible for NCAA championships, and then watch as the number of schools eligible for championships declines and the NCAA withers away, or it can say this is coming and here are some rules to follow to make it fair for all.

I have not read the law but would it allow college tennis players and golfers to give lessons in the summer for compensation?

Lastly maybe the number of schools playing top level competitive football and basketball declines dramatically but the remaining colleges realize that they can not compete on that level and then recruit real student/athletes rather than athletes who are only in college for the sport.

SoCal

[Turk]

The California law is brilliant - it merely builds on the O'Bannon ruling: if the NCAA does NOT own and CANNOT profit off the athlete's names, images, and likenesses without giving those athletes a piece of the action, then it follows that the NCAA has no legal standing to stop the athletes from doing so on their own, and is powerless to stop any legislative body from enacting a law that permits it.

I think an athletic scholarship should be treated no differently than an academic scholarship. If someone on a full academic ride wants to make some money on the side, she is free to do so, as long as she keeps her grades up and meets the other requirements of the scholarship / program. There's no logical reason why someone who earns an athletic scholarship, and happens to have an Instagram following, YouTube channel, or some other marketable talent can't make some money signing calendars or endorsing a product. Some "student-athletes" will want to, or need to, or be able to earn more or less than their peers; again, that is no different than kids on any other type of scholarship.

Any such deal any student or athlete makes is a separate financial transaction between him/her and a third party. It takes zero money out of the school's or the NCAA's pockets. What gives the NCAA the right to interfere?

I think this piece in The Ringer makes a pretty good case: Does the NCAA have a good response? (https://www.theringer.com/2019/10/1/20892842/fair-pay-to-play-act-college-sports-california-law-gavin-newsom)

[Stray Gator]

Welcome to the last 25 years of collegiate football, at at minimum. The concentration of elite talent a limited number of schools is nothing new, nor is the use of transfers and poaching from smaller schools. Whether it is Vernon Adams running the offense for the Ducks or Cam Johnson or Makai Mason hitting threes for a new school in the NCAA tourney, we're already there.

I don't dispute that there is already a concentration of elite talent at a limited number of schools. My point is that the present disparities, which are not sufficiently great to prevent other programs from rising to competitive levels or to prevent the elite programs from having down cycles, would be magnified substantially if the programs with the most resources (including well-heeled boosters) could immediately elevate their advantage by being able to monopolize the market for top talent in what amounts to a straight bidding war. Stated another way in response to your argument, I believe this is a case of the perfect being the enemy of the good.


This sounds great, but if it was a real risk, why wouldn't it have happened in professional sports already? The gulf in compensation between an established star and a rookie is such that the incentives you pose exist above would exist in pro sports too, and if there's ever been an instance of anything like this happening, I don't recall hearing about it.

I don't profess to know much about pro sports, but I believe that some have salary caps, and I'm guessing that the others involve a limited number of organizations that all generate sufficient revenues to enable them to pay competitive salaries and bonuses. A far as I can tell, the California legislation would impose no caps on the amounts that individual players can receive; and I doubt that all of the schools that presently field college football and basketball teams generate sufficient income or otherwise possess sufficient resources to offer compensation to players in amounts that would enable them to compete with the most prosperous programs. Finally, the risk of one player offering incentives to another is obviously less of a concern in a system where every player is already being generously paid, and the rookies are endeavoring to outshine the established stars in order to enhance their future bargaining position. Under the proposed legislation, I think it's unlikely that the majority of college athletes would be able to enjoy the pecuniary benefits of selling their endorsements or autographs.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

The California law is brilliant - it merely builds on the O'Bannon ruling: if the NCAA does NOT own and CANNOT profit off the athlete's names, images, and likenesses without giving those athletes a piece of the action, then it follows that the NCAA has no legal standing to stop the athletes from doing so on their own, and is powerless to stop any legislative body from enacting a law that permits it.

I think an athletic scholarship should be treated no differently than an academic scholarship. If someone on a full academic ride wants to make some money on the side, she is free to do so, as long as she keeps her grades up and meets the other requirements of the scholarship / program. There's no logical reason why someone who earns an athletic scholarship, and happens to have an Instagram following, YouTube channel, or some other marketable talent can't make some money signing calendars or endorsing a product. Some "student-athletes" will want to, or need to, or be able to earn more or less than their peers; again, that is no different than kids on any other type of scholarship.

Any such deal any student or athlete makes is a separate financial transaction between him/her and a third party. It takes zero money out of the school's or the NCAA's pockets. What gives the NCAA the right to interfere?

I think this piece in The Ringer makes a pretty good case: Does the NCAA have a good response? (https://www.theringer.com/2019/10/1/20892842/fair-pay-to-play-act-college-sports-california-law-gavin-newsom)

That's why I am particularly intrigued. This is a pressure point for the NCAA to retain relevance. If they throw their hands up and say "what do we do??" they look unprepared and inept. Everyone has seen this or something like this coming for over ten years.

[Chicago 1995]

I don't dispute that there is already a concentration of elite talent at a limited number of schools. My point is that the present disparities, which are not sufficiently great to prevent other programs from rising to competitive levels or to prevent the elite programs from having down cycles, would be magnified substantially if the programs with the most resources (including well-heeled boosters) could immediately elevate their advantage by being able to monopolize the market for top talent in what amounts to a straight bidding war. Stated another way in response to your argument, I believe this is a case of the perfect being the enemy of the good.

I guess I don't know why we'd think this would make things any worse than they are now. There are already straight bidding wars for players -- and have been for at least 30 years. Hart Lee Dykes ring any bells? Do you think that Eddie Sutton was the only coach that was offering money to Chris Mills in 1990? All this does is make things more transparent, and I'd argue that transparency might bring additional fairness and equity.


I don't profess to know much about pro sports, but I believe that some have salary caps, and I'm guessing that the others involve a limited number of organizations that all generate sufficient revenues to enable them to pay competitive salaries and bonuses. A far as I can tell, the California legislation would impose no caps on the amounts that individual players can receive; and I doubt that all of the schools that presently field college football and basketball teams generate sufficient income or otherwise possess sufficient resources to offer compensation to players in amounts that would enable them to compete with the most prosperous programs. Finally, the risk of one player offering incentives to another is obviously less of a concern in a system where every player is already being generously paid, and the rookies are endeavoring to outshine the established stars in order to enhance their future bargaining position. Under the proposed legislation, I think it's unlikely that the majority of college athletes would be able to enjoy the pecuniary benefits of selling their endorsements or autographs.

I don't think there are any caps in the California legislation, and I don't know about any of the other states following suit. In pro sports, you are looking at a $30M plus difference between the highest paid player (Strasburg -- $38.3M, Aaron Rodgers $33.5M, Steph Curry $37.5M) and the rookie minimum (MLB $540K, NFL $480K, NBA $838K). There no way the gap will be that big in college sports. So again, I'd pose that if a player was going to be paid to take it easy on an opponent by the opponent, or would be paid to give up opportunities to a fellow teammate to the detriment to the team, it would have already happened in pro sports. It's just not a realistic risk.

[mgtr]

I don't have any skin in this game, at best I am a Coach K fan. As an oldster, I just hope that I am around long enough to see how this all plays out.
There have been many reasonable arguments put forth, but I guess that I am in Stray Gator's camp. The next few years should be interesting.

[Steven43]

How can you say this when we had Zion Williamson and RJ Barrett on the team last year? EVERYONE knew who these two guys were before they put on Duke blue.

We are talking millions of views for high school mix-tapes. Heck, sometimes it was just highlights from a single high school game, and yet it would still rack up views. Perhaps you don't spend any time watching such videos, but high school basketball game highlights involving high-level prospects are very popular.

Take Mac McClung for instance: I saw more high school game footage of Georgetown's Mac McClung than Georgetown fans did watching him as a freshman this past year. McClung is an example of a guy who might actually get less attention in college than he did in high school.
Yeah, a bunch of junior high and high school kids repeatedly rewatching dunk highlights by Zion while he was in high school (thus artificially inflating the views) does not constitute EVERYONE knowing who Zion and RJ were before the massive platform provided by Duke launched them into the stratosphere. I’ll bet that I could have walked down the street in any city 1.5 years ago asking people if they know or care who Zion and RJ are and 98% of them would have said “Who?”.

Besides, most of these high school basketball players all blend together. There are highlights available online of EVERY top 100-200 player. These guys and their high school highlights are easily forgettable and irrelevant to pretty much everyone save hardcore basketball junkies with way too much time on their hands.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

How can you say this when we had Zion Williamson and RJ Barrett on the team last year? EVERYONE knew who these two guys were before they put on Duke blue. .

Your exceptions prove the rule. And FTR, everyone knew Zion...but RJ had MUUUUUUUUUUCH lower profile.......Zion is a once in a generation player.......RJ wasn't close and 99.9999999% of the athletes are not.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

I don't dispute that there is already a concentration of elite talent at a limited number of schools. My point is that the present disparities, which are not sufficiently great to prevent other programs from rising to competitive levels or to prevent the elite programs from having down cycles, would be magnified substantially if the programs with the most resources (including well-heeled boosters) could immediately elevate their advantage by being able to monopolize the market for top talent in what amounts to a straight bidding war. Stated another way in response to your argument, I believe this is a case of the perfect being the enemy of the good.



I don't profess to know much about pro sports, but I believe that some have salary caps, and I'm guessing that the others involve a limited number of organizations that all generate sufficient revenues to enable them to pay competitive salaries and bonuses. A far as I can tell, the California legislation would impose no caps on the amounts that individual players can receive; and I doubt that all of the schools that presently field college football and basketball teams generate sufficient income or otherwise possess sufficient resources to offer compensation to players in amounts that would enable them to compete with the most prosperous programs. Finally, the risk of one player offering incentives to another is obviously less of a concern in a system where every player is already being generously paid, and the rookies are endeavoring to outshine the established stars in order to enhance their future bargaining position. Under the proposed legislation, I think it's unlikely that the majority of college athletes would be able to enjoy the pecuniary benefits of selling their endorsements or autographs.


Good Lord, stop the presses. Gator and I agree on something. Is this a first?

[-jk]

Please stick to the topic at hand, folks.

thanks,

-jk

[MartyClark]

Please stick to the topic at hand, folks.

thanks,

-jk

Thanks, give us some guidance, where have we strayed.

[-jk]

Thanks, give us some guidance, where have we strayed.

Sorry. Going PPB on california v flyover. I deleted several posts.

-jk

[MartyClark]

Sorry. Going PPB on california v flyover. I deleted several posts.

-jk

Good enough. Thanks.

[ChillinDuke]

I am not an oldster, to borrow mgtr's word, but there are days where I feel like one. I find myself in total agreement with Stray on this one.

I don't pretend to believe the old system was 100% fair. I don't pretend to believe the NCAA was a well-run institution. I also don't pretend to believe that there weren't blatant attempts over the years to pay players and/or circumvent the rules.

What I do believe, though, is that the old system was more fair for the collective interest of ALL stakeholders than this new, impending one. I am not trying to advocate for the schools. I am not trying to artificially limit the earning power of young basketball players. None of that. Too easily do people here sometimes twist a view to mean something unintended.

I struggle to envision a college sports world in 5-10 years that is better off as a result of these looming, widespread changes. For reasons well documented, in particular by Stray but others as well. I get that Zion and other transcendent talents deserve to be paid if their skills command it. But if it creates scenarios where people lose interest in college sports, and revenues fall, and Pitt or TCU or Nebraska loses a field hockey team or a swim team or a gymnastics team, amongst other potential issues, I fail to see how the world, in totality, has benefited.

And for that reason, I'm scared of how this may play out. Here's to hoping people like me are wrong.

But for now, to Mtn's point, I don't think it's beneficial debating if paying the players is right or wrong. It simply appears to be happening. And so the only thing that interests me is predictions on how this plays out for the collective, for everyone, for all interested parties.

And setting aside the PTP skewed posts, I haven't really recognized anyone who has set forth a compelling argument that college basketball (or better yet, college sports in general) will now be better for everyone. And I hope, for the sake of my favorite hobby, that someone will. Because I don't know what else to objectively root for at this point.

- Chillin

[HereBeforeCoachK]

I find myself in total agreement with Stray on this one.

I don't pretend to believe the old system was 100% fair. I don't pretend to believe the NCAA was a well-run institution. I also don't pretend to believe that there weren't blatant attempts over the years to pay players and/or circumvent the rules.

What I do believe, though, is that the old system was more fair for the collective interest of ALL stakeholders than this new, impending one......

I struggle to envision a college sports world in 5-10 years that is better off as a result of these looming, widespread changes. For reasons well documented, in particular by Stray but others as well. I get that Zion and other transcendent talents deserve to be paid if their skills command it. But if it creates scenarios where people lose interest in college sports, and revenues fall, and Pitt or TCU or Nebraska loses a field hockey team or a swim team or a gymnastics team, amongst other potential issues, I fail to see how the world, in totality, has benefited.

And for that reason, I'm scared of how this may play out.


Your post deserved to be repeated, due to your on the money content and appropriate tone. And to buttress your points, with the calls from so many now for the NCAA to step up (ie, pay the players), the California law and the over all PTP movement is one and the same as far as discussion goes. This Pandora's box contains thousands of uncomfortable questions, most of which have not been contemplated honestly in this debate (looking at you Jay Bilas).

The obvious ones are the non revenue sports, the facilities, the further skewing of power (in all sports) into the hands of only the big institutions due to football revenues, and so on. And all that's assuming revenues stay where they are or continue to rise. They won't.

But the one thing I really liked about your post is that these changes will certainly benefit a few players in the short run....no doubt. But it will not benefit the majority. While the star quarterback gets the endorsement money, what about the linemen who protect him? They won't get that. How will that play in the locker room? What will the campus be like when the non revenue sports revert back to club status? What will happen to national TV ratings when only big market teams can compete? When the star QB turns out to disappoint, will he lose the endorsements? Can he be "fired?" If this is really about market, then he should be able to be fired. There are many variations of these kinds of questions that are never debated.

I thought it was comical a few years ago when the Northwestern football team wanted to unionize. I'm thinking...don't you see the empty seats at NW games? NW athletics only turn a profit because of the demographic power of the B1G due to Ohio State and Michigan primarily, not to mention other massive schools in the league. NW football by itself is a huge money loser I'm sure. You would think NW players might understand the economic realities here. Then again, you'd think Bilas would too.

[AGDukesky]

I may have missed if someone already mentioned this, but I see the potential for more players to stay in school longer either for love of college sports or to avoid being exposed against better pro competition. I wonder how the professional leagues will respond to this- especially the NBA with a rookie salary cap. If you want to believe Zion really struggled to leave Duke, under these rules he likely makes significantly more money staying at Duke compared to his NBA salary (yes, I realize they aren’t mutually exclusive). Obviously, he wouldn’t stay all four years simply because his potential second contract probably becomes more significant versus endorsement revenue, but an extra year wouldn’t seem that outrageous if he really wanted to go for an NCAA championship.

[wsb3]

I am not an oldster, to borrow mgtr's word, but there are days where I feel like one. I find myself in total agreement with Stray on this one.

I don't pretend to believe the old system was 100% fair. I don't pretend to believe the NCAA was a well-run institution. I also don't pretend to believe that there weren't blatant attempts over the years to pay players and/or circumvent the rules.

What I do believe, though, is that the old system was more fair for the collective interest of ALL stakeholders than this new, impending one. I am not trying to advocate for the schools. I am not trying to artificially limit the earning power of young basketball players. None of that. Too easily do people here sometimes twist a view to mean something unintended.

I struggle to envision a college sports world in 5-10 years that is better off as a result of these looming, widespread changes. For reasons well documented, in particular by Stray but others as well. I get that Zion and other transcendent talents deserve to be paid if their skills command it. But if it creates scenarios where people lose interest in college sports, and revenues fall, and Pitt or TCU or Nebraska loses a field hockey team or a swim team or a gymnastics team, amongst other potential issues, I fail to see how the world, in totality, has benefited.

And for that reason, I'm scared of how this may play out. Here's to hoping people like me are wrong.

But for now, to Mtn's point, I don't think it's beneficial debating if paying the players is right or wrong. It simply appears to be happening. And so the only thing that interests me is predictions on how this plays out for the collective, for everyone, for all interested parties.

And setting aside the PTP skewed posts, I haven't really recognized anyone who has set forth a compelling argument that college basketball (or better yet, college sports in general) will now be better for everyone. And I hope, for the sake of my favorite hobby, that someone will. Because I don't know what else to objectively root for at this point.

- Chillin

Thoughtful post. I am neither for or against but I too am wary..

[Billy Dat]

@GoodmanHoops
One coach to me: "Let these kids get whatever they are worth. If anything it will be eye opening for those that get plenty of $$$, and for those that realize their likeness isn’t worth much.”

[PackMan97]

I struggle to envision a college sports world in 5-10 years that is better off as a result of these looming, widespread changes. For reasons well documented, in particular by Stray but others as well. I get that Zion and other transcendent talents deserve to be paid if their skills command it. But if it creates scenarios where people lose interest in college sports, and revenues fall, and Pitt or TCU or Nebraska loses a field hockey team or a swim team or a gymnastics team, amongst other potential issues, I fail to see how the world, in totality, has benefited.

And for that reason, I'm scared of how this may play out. Here's to hoping people like me are wrong.

The challenge I have in particular is football, where we know these kids are putting their life and mental abilities at risk for no future consideration. I can see an argument for other sports like Basketball, Tennis, Swimming, etc where even with injuries you can still lead a full and productive life. It's football that has really changed my opinion on kids getting paid.

What we have right now is not much more than a step up from the Gladiator days of ancient Rome (just less blood and death). Are we not entertained?

[Steven43]

What we have right now is not much more than a step up from the Gladiator days of ancient Rome (just less blood and death). Are we not entertained?
Do you really believe this?? Honestly?

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

They ARE being paid — through the colleges spending millions upon millions to support athletics programs FOR THE STUDENT-ATHLETES for such things as coaching (for their specific sport, for nutrition needs, for tailored workouts, etc.), tuition, books, computers, food, healthcare (including basic needs, surgery, rehab, psychiatric counseling, etc.), medications, tutoring, room and board, travel costs, and, perhaps most pertinent to this discussion, MARKETING.

Without the colleges the student-athletes have no platform whatsoever. None. The colleges provide EVERYTHING. That absolutely constitutes payment, whether you consider it as such is irrelevant.

Donald Sterling (https://www.tmz.com/2014/04/27/donald-sterling-new-audio-released-clippers-black-people/) has a stronger case for you.

[RPS]

Do you really believe this?? Honestly?
Yes.

Talk to players and former players sometime. If they trust you, they will tell you that, even today, concussions are common and commonly hidden. Players want to play. Many team cultures still honor the toughness of those who "play through it" after "getting their bell rung," concussion protocols notwithstanding. In my business we often say that that which is unsustainable has to stop. It's a different (but related) topic, but the intersection of football, concussions, and CTE is unsustainable.

[Steven43]

Donald Sterling (https://www.tmz.com/2014/04/27/donald-sterling-new-audio-released-clippers-black-people/) has a stronger case for you.

Thanks, Mtn, Devil. That was very not helpful.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Thanks, Mtn, Devil. That was very not helpful.

It's an extremely similar argument. That's my point. Very paternalistic.

[Stray Gator]

The challenge I have in particular is football, where we know these kids are putting their life and mental abilities at risk for no future consideration. I can see an argument for other sports like Basketball, Tennis, Swimming, etc where even with injuries you can still lead a full and productive life. It's football that has really changed my opinion on kids getting paid.

What we have right now is not much more than a step up from the Gladiator days of ancient Rome (just less blood and death). Are we not entertained?

Three points that I believe merit consideration by fans who favor the California legislation on the ground that football players deserve to be paid because of the personal sacrifices they make for the game and the risk of injury they incur from playing.

First, each major college football team has 85 scholarship players. How many of those players can reasonably expect to receive significant compensation if the California legislation is implemented nationwide? Remember that this law does not mandate payment for all players, but merely authorizes individual players to accept payment for the use of their name and likeness. We can only speculate, of course, but I would anticipate that less than one-fourth of the players on most teams will find a significant monetary demand for their endorsement or autograph. At the elite programs, where bountiful funds can be channeled through booster organizations to athletes, there would be a much larger percentage of players receiving payments in various amounts. But at the majority of colleges, I seriously doubt that players outside the skill positions would attract any payments -- and even those would likely be modest, except in the case of a superstar. So I think we can anticipate that only a relatively small fraction of the players would actually realize any benefits from this legislation, even though each player's participation in the game entails roughly equal sacrifices and risks of injury.

Second, even for those players at the glamour positions who attract lucrative endorsements, the continuation of benefits is not assured. What happens to that endorsement income if the star quarterback has a slump and gets benched, or the All-American running back suffers a career-ending injury, or the Biletnikoff Award candidate wide receiver tests positive for a banned substance and gets suspended for the rest of the season? Smart businesses and booster organizations will make sure that their contracts cover such contingencies and leave them an escape from liability for further payments.

Finally, the subject of injury risk poses another, darker prospect: Bounties. What's to prevent a business or booster organization from letting it be known in the locker room that any defender who knocks the opposing team's star offensive players out of the game will receive a handsome endorsement bonus? We know of occasional instances where that's been done surreptitiously by defensive coaches, but injecting limitless monetary incentives into the equation could magnify the opportunities for abuse.

To reiterate, I'm no fan of the NCAA, particularly with respect to the arbitrary way it applies and enforces the rules. And I sympathize with the position that the disparity between the profits that college coaches or administrators enjoy and the benefits that players receive is disproportionate to their relative contributions. And I readily acknowledge that attempts to maintain a level playing field sometimes fall short, either due to deliberate circumvention of the rules by violators or failure on the part of the enforcement authorities. But speaking only for myself, I prefer those relatively tolerable imperfections in the present system to what I fear will be a much more severe set of problems -- and ultimately a much less enjoyable experience for fans of college sports like us -- if the California legislation is implemented universally.

[Steven43]

It's an extremely similar argument. That's my point. Very paternalistic.

Not true at all. Apples and oranges.

[PackMan97]

Do you really believe this?? Honestly?

When in Rome, do as the Romans. 2,000 years ago the Gladiator fights were the height of entertainment, a lot like football is now. Given recent advances in medical knowledge about head and brain injures (namely the long term damage concussions can cause and CTE) I have to think in another 100 years we'll look back and see football as a rather barbaric sport that isn't played any longer.

So there is some hyperbole there of course. However, my desire to watch and consume football has been greatly reduced since I've realized all of the risk these players are taking on solely for my entertainment and adoration. I'm just not comfortable with it any longer. In particular asking college students to do it without monetary compensation (although the money in the NFL often makes the problem worse as players don't quit when they've had their bell rung and end up getting one injury too many).

I have no doubt that CA bill will bring many changes to college football. Many of which will not be healthy for the sport. I guess I'm willing to roll the dice and see what happens over things staying as they are.

[RPS]

Not true at all. Apples and oranges.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK6oGi5g4QE&feature=youtu.be

[dukelifer]

When in Rome, do as the Romans. 2,000 years ago the Gladiator fights were the height of entertainment, a lot like football is now. Given recent advances in medical knowledge about head and brain injures (namely the long term damage concussions can cause and CTE) I have to think in another 100 years we'll look back and see football as a rather barbaric sport that isn't played any longer.

So there is some hyperbole there of course. However, my desire to watch and consume football has been greatly reduced since I've realized all of the risk these players are taking on solely for my entertainment and adoration. I'm just not comfortable with it any longer. In particular asking college students to do it without monetary compensation (although the money in the NFL often makes the problem worse as players don't quit when they've had their bell rung and end up getting one injury too many).

I have no doubt that CA bill will bring many changes to college football. Many of which will not be healthy for the sport. I guess I'm willing to roll the dice and see what happens over things staying as they are.

In 100 years, we may be heading to a dystopian society where football may be viewed as too tame. Seriously, football will slowly die off, as Mom's stop letting their kids play in middle and high school due to the long term risks to health. That is happening more and more.

[PackMan97]

In 100 years, we may be heading to a dystopian society where football may be viewed as too tame.

Bring on the Thunderdome!

[RPS]

Seriously, football will slowly die off, as Mom's stop letting their kids play in middle and high school due to the long term risks to health. That is happening more and more.
"This year, the number of high school kids playing football nationally has dropped to a 26-year low. In Illinois, the number of high school students participating in football dropped from 51,334 in 2007 to 38,336 last year."

Participation in high school football is declining. I’m surprised it’s not happening faster (https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/ct-evr-blaser-column-high-school-football-tl-0912-20190905-u2sn2fbkcvedddv3nekvkglrji-story.html) (Chicago Tribune, September 5, 2019)
High School Football Participation Is On A Decade-Long Decline (https://www.forbes.com/sites/bobcook/2019/08/29/high-school-football-participation-is-on-a-decade-long-decline/#4d5fc83b33de) (Forbes)

[Steven43]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK6oGi5g4QE&feature=youtu.be
Very nice. And also not relevant. Are you sure you and Mtn. Devil are not one and the same? I have my suspicions.

[SlapTheFloor]

Three points that I believe merit consideration by fans who favor the California legislation on the ground that football players deserve to be paid because of the personal sacrifices they make for the game and the risk of injury they incur from playing.

First, each major college football team has 85 scholarship players. How many of those players can reasonably expect to receive significant compensation if the California legislation is implemented nationwide? Remember that this law does not mandate payment for all players, but merely authorizes individual players to accept payment for the use of their name and likeness. We can only speculate, of course, but I would anticipate that less than one-fourth of the players on most teams will find a significant monetary demand for their endorsement or autograph. At the elite programs, where bountiful funds can be channeled through booster organizations to athletes, there would be a much larger percentage of players receiving payments in various amounts. But at the majority of colleges, I seriously doubt that players outside the skill positions would attract any payments -- and even those would likely be modest, except in the case of a superstar. So I think we can anticipate that only a relatively small fraction of the players would actually realize any benefits from this legislation, even though each player's participation in the game entails roughly equal sacrifices and risks of injury.

That's an odd definition of "fairness." You're saying payment in athletics should be based on sacrifice and risk of injury. Is there any occupation where that is true? All that I'm aware of give at least some weight to ability.



Second, even for those players at the glamour positions who attract lucrative endorsements, the continuation of benefits is not assured. What happens to that endorsement income if the star quarterback has a slump and gets benched, or the All-American running back suffers a career-ending injury, or the Biletnikoff Award candidate wide receiver tests positive for a banned substance and gets suspended for the rest of the season? Smart businesses and booster organizations will make sure that their contracts cover such contingencies and leave them an escape from liability for further payments.

Ok. Are you saying that's a bad thing? Most companies do the same thing. It's called performance bonuses.



Finally, the subject of injury risk poses another, darker prospect: Bounties. What's to prevent a business or booster organization from letting it be known in the locker room that any defender who knocks the opposing team's star offensive players out of the game will receive a handsome endorsement bonus? We know of occasional instances where that's been done surreptitiously by defensive coaches, but injecting limitless monetary incentives into the equation could magnify the opportunities for abuse.

That's a bit of a stretch. At the very least, it would open the business or booster organization up to a huge lawsuit from the targeted athlete.



To reiterate, I'm no fan of the NCAA, particularly with respect to the arbitrary way it applies and enforces the rules. And I sympathize with the position that the disparity between the profits that college coaches or administrators enjoy and the benefits that players receive is disproportionate to their relative contributions. And I readily acknowledge that attempts to maintain a level playing field sometimes fall short, either due to deliberate circumvention of the rules by violators or failure on the part of the enforcement authorities. But speaking only for myself, I prefer those relatively tolerable imperfections in the present system to what I fear will be a much more severe set of problems -- and ultimately a much less enjoyable experience for fans of college sports like us -- if the California legislation is implemented universally.

The whole world is a meritocracy. Even now, within college athletics, you can be kicked off the team for poor performance. Football players have had their scholarships revoked for injuries received *on* the field. Your idea of a pure form of the sport exists only in the imagination.

[Steven43]

My desire to watch and consume football has been greatly reduced since I've realized all of the risk these players are taking on solely for my entertainment and adoration. I'm just not comfortable with it any longer.

I doubt your entertainment has anything whatsoever to do with why even one person plays football.

Anyway, young men play football for any number of reasons: 1) they like the sport 2) they like the compensation (admittance to school, scholarships, complete room and board including the best food available on campus, all variety of healthcare services, etc.) 3) adoration from the vast majority of the student body as well as the general public 4) ego boost and feelings of self-worth 5) character-building 6) lifelong connection to a school and its athletic program 7) free athletic gear for life 8) ticket preference for life (alums get the best seats) 9) get in great shape by working out daily as well as receiving personally-tailored workouts with professional trainers 10) girls 11) free meals and special treatment from any number of restaurant owners as an alum 12) inside track to getting a coaching job as an alum 13) inside track to any number of business deals with local businesses as an alum 14) any or all of the above plus many things I didn’t list.

Yeah, now that I think about it this does sound truly awful (not to mention horribly paternalistic, Mtn. Devil). I don’t know how the schools are able to convince anyone to do it.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Very nice. And also not relevant. Are you sure you and Mtn. Devil are not one and the same? I have my suspicions.

You vastly overrate how much I care about these arguments.

This is precisely why I didn't want this thread to devolve into yet another discussion of amateurism versus paying the players.

I'm not interested in hearing everyone's opinions on this for a 75th time. I am interested in how this California law might or might not change college basketball moving forward.

Look, there are people who believe that college basketball can still revert to the roots that made it great and that many of us love. When "student athletes" meant something, and schools put their most talented collegiates head to head in sports. Athletes were happy to have free tuition, and stayed four years and all waa well.

Then there are other people who see college sports as a plantation like system that makes huge buckets of money off of unpaid (or underpaid to a factor or 10 to 100 times) labor, where the coaches and schools pile up money on the talents and recognizance of 18-22 year old kids.

Ok, we get it. Now, what does anyone think of this law - the legality of it, the feasibility of it, and the impact on the NCAA, college basketball, and Duke in particular?

[PackMan97]

I doubt your entertainment has anything whatsoever to do with why even one person plays football.

Our entertainment is the only reason football exists outside of rec leagues. Who do you think pays for everything? TV Dollars, Tickets, Boost Club memberships, Clothing, shoe sales and other advertising have nothing to do with it? Big time sports can't exist without the customers and advertising to support it.

[vfefrenzy]

How many of those players can reasonably expect to receive significant compensation if the California legislation is implemented nationwide?

So you seriously believe it's better that everyone get nothing than some people get something? Sorry, QB, the long snapper isn't going to make bank, so you shouldn't get to either.

[Stray Gator]

That's an odd definition of "fairness." You're saying payment in athletics should be based on sacrifice and risk of injury. Is there any occupation where that is true? All that I'm aware of give at least some weight to ability.

I've said no such thing. I'm merely responding to another poster who stated a belief that football players should be paid because of their sacrifices and risks of injury. My point is simply this: If you believe that football players should as a matter of fairness be paid based on the fact that they make greater sacrifices and incur greater risks than other college athletes, how do you rationalize the "fairness" of legislation that will result in only a small fraction of those players receiving any monetary compensation, when they all make roughly the same sacrifices and accept the same risks?


. Are you saying that's a bad thing? Most companies do the same thing. It's called performance bonuses. Not exactly. A performance bonus would be equivalent to giving a player some additional endorsement compensation based on scoring the most touchdowns, or setting a record for three-point shots, or winning the individual conference golf championship, etc. Once paid, in either context, the reward is irrevocable. I'm talking about a situation in which the local dealership agrees to pays a 5-star quarterback recruit X thousand dollars per month as an ongoing inducement to play for Pigskin Polytech and endorse the business. Then the recruit gets injured in preseason practice, and receives nothing from the "endorsement agreement."


That's a bit of a stretch. At the very least, it would open the business or booster organization up to a huge lawsuit from the targeted athlete. It's not a stretch to believe that such "bounties" are offered -- we know it's occurred in the past, even without large amounts of money as an incentive. And any lawsuit would, in my opinion, be a real longshot roll of the dice, given the difficulties of proof.


The whole world is a meritocracy. Even now, within college athletics, you can be kicked off the team for poor performance. Football players have had their scholarships revoked for injuries received *on* the field. Your idea of a pure form of the sport exists only in the imagination.I don't know what more I can say to dispel the notion that I believe college athletics is "pure." Nor can I imagine what else I can say to emphasize the point that I believe the California law would produce a much worse -- and more unfair -- situation. In any event, it appears that the California law will be implemented there and will soon be adopted in other jurisdictions, so like it or not, we're probably going find out whether my apprehensions are well-founded or imaginary.

[Stray Gator]

So you seriously believe it's better that everyone get nothing than some people get something? Sorry, QB, the long snapper isn't going to make bank, so you shouldn't get to either.

I believe it's best -- and most "fair" -- when every college player receives the same benefits. They already receive considerably more than "nothing." If you want to pay them, then I would prefer a system that requires them all to be paid the same.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

You vastly overrate how much I care about these arguments. And yet, you're on this thread a lot...

This is precisely why I didn't want this thread to devolve into yet another discussion of amateurism versus paying the players. It is unreasonable to expect anything else. OF COURSE this is a bigger part of the PTP amateurism argument.

I'm not interested in hearing everyone's opinions on this for a 75th time. I am interested in how this California law might or might not change college basketball moving forward. There are many good predictions on here, seems like you don't want to believe any of them.

Look, there are people who believe that college basketball can still revert to the roots that made it great and that many of us love. When "student athletes" meant something, and schools put their most talented collegiates head to head in sports. Athletes were happy to have free tuition, and stayed four years and all waa well. You just made the other side of the argument....

Then there are other people who see college sports as a plantation like system that makes huge buckets of money off of unpaid (or underpaid to a factor or 10 to 100 times) labor, where the coaches and schools pile up money on the talents and recognizance of 18-22 year old kids. For a plantation, there sure are a helluva lot of athletes who are dedicating their entire lives to get on it.

Ok, we get it. Now, what does anyone think of this law - the legality of it, the feasibility of it, and the impact on the NCAA, college basketball, and Duke in particular?

Well you can't reasonably answer this question by isolating Duke and basketball. That's now how this works. That said, here goes: this is the first step in expediting Coach K's retirement, as well as Cut's, IMO...and it's the beginning of the end of Duke relevance. Not immediately...but the dominos are going to fall.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Well you can't reasonably answer this question by isolating Duke and basketball. That's now how this works. That said, here goes: this is the first step in expediting Coach K's retirement, as well as Cut's, IMO...and it's the beginning of the end of Duke relevance. Not immediately...but the dominos are going to fall.

Yes, I intentionally laid out both sides the argument. You got me. Congrats.

And yes, I post on this thread because I do care about it, but not enough to create elaborate alter egos many years ago for the purposes of patting myself on the back, which was the insinuation I was responding directly to.

This conversation has gone directly down the toilet. I am bowing out until when/if anyone cares to discuss the actual issues at hand rather than rehashing paying players for the umpteenth time.

Enjoy eating your own tail everyone. I swear, the 2020 Presidential race thread is less vitriolic than whatever is going on here.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Yes, I intentionally laid out both sides the argument. You got me. Congrats.

And yes, I post on this thread because I do care about it, but not enough to create elaborate alter egos many years ago for the purposes of patting myself on the back, which was the insinuation I was responding directly to.

This conversation has gone directly down the toilet. I am bowing out until when/if anyone cares to discuss the actual issues at hand rather than rehashing paying players for the umpteenth time.

Enjoy eating your own tail everyone. I swear, the 2020 Presidential race thread is less vitriolic than whatever is going on here.

This thread is far from anything like the vitriol in politics right now. Far from it. And it is the biggest story, potentially the biggest sea change, EVER, in college athletics. It will be, and should be, a major topic on this and every other forum dedicated to college sports. It almost sounds as if you want to position yourself as "too good for the fray" - even after being in the middle of it. I noticed you didn't want to address the pertinence to K, Cut and Duke's relevance slipping away.

[Chicago 1995]

I don't know what more I can say to dispel the notion that I believe college athletics is "pure." Nor can I imagine what else I can say to emphasize the point that I believe the California law would produce a much worse -- and more unfair -- situation. In any event, it appears that the California law will be implemented there and will soon be adopted in other jurisdictions, so like it or not, we're probably going find out whether my apprehensions are well-founded or imaginary.

I guess the counter I've been trying to make, Stray, is that the points you pose are proof that the world will be much worse with name and likeness rights being granted to athletes are either (1) already a sizable problem is college athletics that have been for some time; or (2) are concerns that are unrealistic or so remote that they, in my opinion, shouldn't move the needle as to name and likeness rights -- or players being compensated. While I'm on the other side of the issue from you, I do have concerns. What does this do to private donations to athletic departments, generated by a football team, but funding a softball team? How active will schools be in regulating or vetting sponsorship deals, or will private advisers -- gasp agents! -- do that?

The world now is going to change at a breakneck speed and no one is prepared for what might come. Who's fault is that?

The NCAA. That things would come to this head has been evident for a long time. Ed O'Bannon filed suit 10 years ago. 10! What have Emmert and his acolytes like Jim Delaney and Gene Smith and John Swofford done? They've made easily debunked, bad faith arguments to try to avoid any change at all, and to protect a system to which they've brought limited value and reaped incredible reward. That we're now worried about what this might do to the Stanford crew team or Duke's cross country athletes isn't the fault of the legislators taking action. It isn't the fault of the athletes like Zion or Johnny Manziel or Tim Tebow who stood as examples of athletes who should have benefited from their name and likeness rights while in college. It's the fault of the NCAA and its member institutions for sticking their heads in the sand.

[killerleft]

They ARE being paid — through the colleges spending millions upon millions to support athletics programs FOR THE STUDENT-ATHLETES for such things as coaching (for their specific sport, for nutrition needs, for tailored workouts, etc.), tuition, books, computers, food, healthcare (including basic needs, surgery, rehab, psychiatric counseling, etc.), medications, tutoring, room and board, travel costs, and, perhaps most pertinent to this discussion, MARKETING.

Without the colleges the student-athletes have no platform whatsoever. None. The colleges provide EVERYTHING. That absolutely constitutes payment, whether you consider it as such is irrelevant.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. Colleges and universities do not exist to be a platform for athletes to make professional salaries or bonuses. They are there to educate students and to prepare them for future endeavors.

If a select few athletes are at a point where they can go it alone and do not need the benefits of a college experience/education, then more power to them. The tiny number of athletes foregoing college even now shows the truth of Steven43's post. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind.

Becoming a student-athlete is not a form of slavery. The student/athletes sign up for the college experience and agree to abide by the NCAA rules.

Use the many advantages that come with the college experience and its benefits, or strike out (pun intended) on your own. The student/athletes have already decided. They aren't dummies.

[Billy Dat]

@ryenarussillo
If the fair play act actually happens it’s going to be a like more like patches on NBA jerseys than the end of the NCAA. People will freak out. Some kids will make side money. Every state will pass it so they don’t lose recruits and then we will all collectively shrug.

(by the way, my posting of these tweets isn't necessarily an endorsement of their content, I am just adding ones that I think have interesting takes.)

[chrishoke]

@ryenarussillo
If the fair play act actually happens it’s going to be a like more like patches on NBA jerseys than the end of the NCAA. People will freak out. Some kids will make side money. Every state will pass it so they don’t lose recruits and then we will all collectively shrug.

(by the way, my posting of these tweets isn't necessarily an endorsement of their content, I am just adding ones that I think have interesting takes.)

It will be like that, maybe, if it is well regulated. If unregulated - boosters gone wild - it will be the wild wild west.

[uh_no]

I agree with this wholeheartedly. Colleges and universities do not exist to be a platform for athletes to make professional salaries or bonuses. They are there to educate students and to prepare them for future endeavors.

If a select few athletes are at a point where they can go it alone and do not need the benefits of a college experience/education, then more power to them. The tiny number of athletes foregoing college even now shows the truth of Steven43's post. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind.

Becoming a student-athlete is not a form of slavery. The student/athletes sign up for the college experience and agree to abide by the NCAA rules.

Use the many advantages that come with the college experience and its benefits, or strike out (pun intended) on your own. The student/athletes have already decided. They aren't dummies.

People use Zion as an example. He could have easily gone to the D-leauge and still been in the NBA this year. Why didn't he? Becuase it was worth more to him to play in college. Why should duke pay more for labor than they have to? Duke obviously gets a huge value, and the player obviously gets enough value to make it worth their time. So long as players continue to choose college over the D-league, why should the colleges increase their effective compensation?

That said, the football side is somewhat different. There are legitimately no other places to develop. That bothers me. But it's far from the only industry where "unpaid internships" are a thing. They're illegal in almost all cases...but I also don't believe that universities ought be the place to be providing them when the subject is so far removed from academia.

[Green Wave Dukie]

I am also an old timer who clings to that notion. However the organization that should be concerned about a level playing field is the NCAA, not state legislatures. The NCAA can say that schools in the states that permit compensation are ineligible for NCAA championships, and then watch as the number of schools eligible for championships declines and the NCAA withers away, or it can say this is coming and here are some rules to follow to make it fair for all.

I have not read the law but would it allow college tennis players and golfers to give lessons in the summer for compensation?

Lastly maybe the number of schools playing top level competitive football and basketball declines dramatically but the remaining colleges realize that they can not compete on that level and then recruit real student/athletes rather than athletes who are only in college for the sport.

SoCal


SoCal,

Are you saying this is not allowed now? I know/believe a player can't accept money for competing, but I don't think teaching is outlawed - maybe it is. Seriously curious.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Finally, the subject of injury risk poses another, darker prospect: Bounties. What's to prevent a business or booster organization from letting it be known in the locker room that any defender who knocks the opposing team's star offensive players out of the game will receive a handsome endorsement bonus?.

TRUE: Moreover:
What's to prevent offensive linemen, who might resent their arrogant QB's endorsement train at their expense, from allowing the other team to get their bounty???? It's been known to happen....WITHOUT paid endorsements.

[75Crazie]

I doubt your entertainment has anything whatsoever to do with why even one person plays football.

Anyway, young men play football for any number of reasons: 1) they like the sport 2) they like the compensation (admittance to school, scholarships, complete room and board including the best food available on campus, all variety of healthcare services, etc.) 3) adoration from the vast majority of the student body as well as the general public 4) ego boost and feelings of self-worth 5) character-building 6) lifelong connection to a school and its athletic program 7) free athletic gear for life 8) ticket preference for life (alums get the best seats) 9) get in great shape by working out daily as well as receiving personally-tailored workouts with professional trainers 10) girls 11) free meals and special treatment from any number of restaurant owners as an alum 12) inside track to getting a coaching job as an alum 13) inside track to any number of business deals with local businesses as an alum 14) any or all of the above plus many things I didn’t list.
I would suggest that at least a third of that laundry list of reasons are direct consequences of the desire of the football industry to entertain their fans and (directly or indirectly) get their money, which in turn leads to young athletes wanting to compete in a sport that is potentially so lucrative.

[Troublemaker]

People use Zion as an example. He could have easily gone to the D-leauge and still been in the NBA this year. Why didn't he? Becuase it was worth more to him to play in college. Why should duke pay more for labor than they have to? Duke obviously gets a huge value, and the player obviously gets enough value to make it worth their time. So long as players continue to choose college over the D-league, why should the colleges increase their effective compensation?


Yes, let's keep in mind that the NBA signed exactly ZERO high school players to their $125,000 G-League Select Contract. The players chose college instead. (And, btw, in what other profession can you expect to make $125K out of high school? Not too many.)

I think it would be helpful to the debate if the pay-the-players side could generally dial back some of the rhetoric that they use. Not necessarily in this specific thread, but anyone familiar with the debate knows that slavery and plantation references abound when this discussion is had on the internet. Also, generally speaking, playing NCAA basketball or football is considered by this side of the debate to be the best of several *bad* available options, and I'm not sure that's really true. When players are turning down $125K, then imo, playing NCAA basketball or football is really the best of several *good* available options even if it doesn't match the desired hypothetical ideal that is not available.

I think this aligns with common sense, imo. If you're young and extremely talented at something, especially in the lucrative entertainment industry, you typically have good options in life.

[75Crazie]

I agree with this wholeheartedly. Colleges and universities do not exist to be a platform for athletes to make professional salaries or bonuses. They are there to educate students and to prepare them for future endeavors.
uNC agrees with you … at least, for public consumption.


If a select few athletes are at a point where they can go it alone and do not need the benefits of a college experience/education, then more power to them. The tiny number of athletes foregoing college even now shows the truth of Steven43's post. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind.
Do you really believe that college football and basketball would see anywhere near the level of participation from the top tier athletes if a viable alternative (a minor league, if you will) was available? That "tiny number" you reference would increase significantly if a developmental league, one paying some sort of stipend to athletes, would be robust enough to give athletes an equal chance to advance.


Becoming a student-athlete is not a form of slavery. The student/athletes sign up for the college experience and agree to abide by the NCAA rules.

Use the many advantages that come with the college experience and its benefits, or strike out (pun intended) on your own. The student/athletes have already decided. They aren't dummies.
No, they are not. They realize that their dreams of advancement to the professional ranks are hugely enhanced by playing the game and giving lip-service to college participation.

[PackMan97]

Yes, let's keep in mind that the NBA signed exactly ZERO high school players to their $125,000 G-League Select Contract. The players chose college instead. (And, btw, in what other profession can you expect to make $125K out of high school? Not too many.)

False comparison.

The options aren't:
a) G-League
b) College
c) Overseas

There is a fourth option that is being denied High School players like Zion
d) NBA

The kids that are good enough to jump to the NBA realize that right now the college game is higher profile than the G-League (which AFAIK isn't even on TV). So, that is the choice they must make. It's not really a decision.

Same for other kids. Would you rather play in obscurity in the G-League, or be a rock star on a college campus while you do your time until the NBA says you can play in their league?

As far as I know, one of the few high school kids eligible for the NBA, declared and signed a 4 year deal (2 years guaranteed) with the Phoenix Suns. It's clear he'd rather get paid than play in college (or the g-league).

[Steven43]

I would suggest that at least a third of that laundry list of reasons are direct consequences of the desire of the football industry to entertain their fans and (directly or indirectly) get their money, which in turn leads to young athletes wanting to compete in a sport that is potentially so lucrative.

And?

[HereBeforeCoachK]

False comparison.

The options aren't:
a) G-League
b) College
c) Overseas

There is a fourth option that is being denied High School players like Zion
d) NBA



Uh, sorry, but at this moment, those ARE the only options. Your option D doesn't exist, but I suspect it will exist soon, and probably should exist. But "players like Zion" is a TINY population, and that change won't move the needle at all. Troublemaker is right here. And FTR, the NCAA is not responsible for option D not existing currently. Thank the NBA Players Union for that one.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Do you really believe that college football and basketball would see anywhere near the level of participation from the top tier athletes if a viable alternative (a minor league, if you will) was available? That "tiny number" you reference would increase significantly if a developmental league, one paying some sort of stipend to athletes, would be robust enough to give athletes an equal chance to advance.


This is satire, right?

A "viable" option doesn't exist because A VIABLE MARKET OF FANS does not exist, will not exist, and could NEVER replicate the tradition of the colleges........In fact, if the market for this league existed, the option would exist.

[Steven43]

Would you rather play in obscurity in the G-League, or be a rock star on a college campus while you do your time until the NBA says you can play in their league?

Thank you for helping defend the value of the awesome benefits colleges provide aspiring basketball professionals.

[Troublemaker]

False comparison.

The options aren't:
a) G-League
b) College
c) Overseas

There is a fourth option that is being denied High School players like Zion
d) NBA

The kids that are good enough to jump to the NBA realize that right now the college game is higher profile than the G-League (which AFAIK isn't even on TV). So, that is the choice they must make. It's not really a decision.

Same for other kids. Would you rather play in obscurity in the G-League, or be a rock star on a college campus while you do your time until the NBA says you can play in their league?

As far as I know, one of the few high school kids eligible for the NBA, declared and signed a 4 year deal (2 years guaranteed) with the Phoenix Suns. It's clear he'd rather get paid than play in college (or the g-league).

Huh? I would be okay with the NBA removing the OAD rule. Your reply seems to be a non-sequitur to both my post and the thread in general that's focusing on what the NCAA can/should do.

Additionally, if you agree that playing NCAA basketball or football is the best of several *good* available options even if it doesn't match some hypothetical ideal, then we are in full agreement.

Finally, don't let the NFL off the hook by focusing in on just the NBA. The NFL has a 3-and-free rule in place, as you know. Just by the nature of roster size differences between the two sports, I'm certain that more NFL-ready athletes are denied the opportunity to play in the NFL each year than NBA-ready athletes are being denied the opportunity to play in the NBA.

[75Crazie]

A "viable" option doesn't exist because A VIABLE MARKET OF FANS does not exist, will not exist, and could NEVER replicate the tradition of the colleges....In fact, if the market for this league existed, the option would exist.
You are correct … a basketball or football minor league would not replicate the popularity of college. And that is why it will never change, in spite of the fact that the "tradition" you mention involves bringing in ringers to compete, a tradition that extends back at least as far as the Marx Brothers' "Horsefeathers" (and probably a lot farther back). And that tradition is no less laughable today than it was then. And, finally, yes, I DO understand the futility of bringing this opinion to a sports fan board … but I've never tired of tilting at windmills.

[SoCalDukeFan]

SoCal,

Are you saying this is not allowed now? I know/believe a player can't accept money for competing, but I don't think teaching is outlawed - maybe it is. Seriously curious.

PRIVATE LESSONS (FEE-FOR-LESSON)
The NCAA permits student-athletes to be paid for providing lessons in the sport in which they compete. Unlike other summer employment, the Athletic Department must maintain year-round records for any private lessons.
To receive compensation for giving private lessons (teaching or coaching sport skills or techniques in your sport), you must meet ALL of the following:
• Institutional facilities may NOT be used;
• Playing lessons are not permitted;
• The athletic department must receive documentation of the lessons and fee provided BEFORE the lessons occur.
• Compensation must be paid by the lesson’s recipient, not another individual or entity.
• A student-athlete may NOT use his/her name, picture, or appearance to promote or advertise the availability of
private lessons.
• Lessons are designed to be individual in nature and cannot include more than two recipients at any one time.

[Steven43]

You are correct … a basketball or football minor league would not replicate the popularity of college. And that is why it will never change, in spite of the fact that the "tradition" you mention involves bringing in ringers to compete, a tradition that extends back at least as far as the Marx Brothers' "Horsefeathers" (and probably a lot farther back). And that tradition is no less laughable today than it was then. And, finally, yes, I DO understand the futility of bringing this opinion to a sports fan board … but I've never tired of tilting at windmills.

Please explain exactly what you mean by colleges bringing in “ringers”. I think I agree with what you’re saying here, but I can’t know for sure until you explain your definition of ringer, as used in this context.

[MartyClark]

Huh? I would be okay with the NBA removing the OAD rule. Your reply seems to be a non-sequitur to both my post and the thread in general that's focusing on what the NCAA can/should do.

Additionally, if you agree that playing NCAA basketball or football is the best of several *good* available options even if it doesn't match some hypothetical ideal, then we are in full agreement.

Finally, don't let the NFL off the hook by focusing in on just the NBA. The NFL has a 3-and-free rule in place, as you know. Just by the nature of roster size differences between the two sports, I'm certain that more NFL-ready athletes are denied the opportunity to play in the NFL each year than NBA-ready athletes are being denied the opportunity to play in the NBA.

With regard to the NFL, one of my good friends played major college football and contends that there are no kids - zero in his opinion - who are ready to play in the NFL without a couple years of college football. I've argued to him that some kids, maybe not many, are able to make that jump. My last year of football was the 9th grade - as he points out - so I may not have the necessary experience to opine on this.

[SoCalDukeFan]

I agree with this wholeheartedly. Colleges and universities do not exist to be a platform for athletes to make professional salaries or bonuses. They are there to educate students and to prepare them for future endeavors.

1. Accepting basketball recruits knowing with 95% certainty or more that they are staying for one year. Maybe the one year is preparation for the NBA but how much of an education in one year.

2. Paying coaches 50 times or more than what is paid professors.

3. Accepting athletes whose academic qualifications are far below applicants who are not accepted.

Big time college football and basketball are big business. They mostly have little to do with educating students or preparing them for future endeavors. (The NCAA ads tell us how few athletes succeed as pros. ) I have no idea what will be the unintended consequences of all this and hope I live long enough to see them. However I fully understand why many want to see this change implemented.

SoCal

[HereBeforeCoachK]

You are correct … a basketball or football minor league would not replicate the popularity of college. And that is why it will never change, in spite of the fact that the "tradition" you mention involves bringing in ringers to compete, a tradition that extends back at least as far as the Marx Brothers' "Horsefeathers" (and probably a lot farther back). And that tradition is no less laughable today than it was then. And, finally, yes, I DO understand the futility of bringing this opinion to a sports fan board … but I've never tired of tilting at windmills.

Why are you even here? Seriously, if you are THAT cynical about college sports, then why are you here? Why do you pull for Duke, because they were in the Rose Bowl during the Marx Brothers days, so I guess Duke brings in ringers too? You have just insulted every fan who enjoys the traditions. Seriously, why are you here? You have the right of course, but why?????? Why would you lower your standards to hang around with us dweebs who like the tradition????

[HereBeforeCoachK]

2. Paying coaches 50 times or more than what is paid professors.

SoCal

So I guess we're looking at the very very few coaches who make 5 million....and professors at 100K. On the surface, it seems unfair. But scarcity is a value, and the coaches who can perform at this level are VERY SCARCE and in high demand. Professors, while some are awesome, can mostly be replaced, and often delegate their duties to underlings anyway.

That said, the out of control coach pay and even worse, the out of control athletic administrator bureaucrat pay, is one of the most problematic areas. But hey, once the money shrinks because some fans lose interest, and the rest of the money goes to the players, we won't have to worry about the baseball and tennis teams.......

[Steven43]

This conversation has gone directly down the toilet. I am bowing out until when/if anyone cares to discuss the actual issues at hand rather than rehashing paying players for the umpteenth time.

Enjoy eating your own tail everyone. I swear, the 2020 Presidential race thread is less vitriolic than whatever is going on here.
Mtn. Devil, I think you are seriously overreacting to minor disagreements and fairly tame discourse. I also believe you to be quite mistaken in comparing what transpires on this site to ANY thread about the 2020 USA Presidential race. Come on now, Blue Devils fan.

[unclsam1]

1. Are we to expect that all other states are immediately going to agree to the California law? Several other states have proposals in the mill in their legislatures that differ per a recent ESPN article (e.g. New York is floating a proposal for all collegiate athletes to receive 15% of the revenue generated). I just can't see all state legislatures just passing a law to adopt/ratify the California law.

2. What is the mechanism in California to ensure/investigate compliance and if this goes national, the same question? If the California law goes national, would the NCAA be tasked with enforcing the new set of rules?

[killerleft]

uNC agrees with you … at least, for public consumption.


Do you really believe that college football and basketball would see anywhere near the level of participation from the top tier athletes if a viable alternative (a minor league, if you will) was available? That "tiny number" you reference would increase significantly if a developmental league, one paying some sort of stipend to athletes, would be robust enough to give athletes an equal chance to advance.


No, they are not. They realize that their dreams of advancement to the professional ranks are hugely enhanced by playing the game and giving lip-service to college participation.

In order:

1-What does UNC have to do with it? They're cheaters, that's what they do. They will try to game whatever system is in place.:)

2-I am not worried about college sports surviving this tiny exodus. The marginal sportsters will choose college. It's a no-brainer (yes, even Tar Heels understand it).

3-Like I said, let them turn pro. Thanks for acknowledging the point that going to college is lucrative without allowing the student/athletes to be paid, either by the colleges or some corporate sponsor.

[Troublemaker]

With regard to the NFL, one of my good friends played major college football and contends that there are no kids - zero in his opinion - who are ready to play in the NFL without a couple years of college football. I've argued to him that some kids, maybe not many, are able to make that jump. My last year of football was the 9th grade - as he points out - so I may not have the necessary experience to opine on this.

Oh, I think you should put up more of a fight in that argument with your buddy because I think you have the much more reasonable and persuasive side. (Which is generally the case for the "there are some exceptions" side over the "there are absolutely zero exceptions" side unless math is involved; there are no exceptions to 5 x 0 = 0 :-). Your friend would have a better argument if, in the NFL, rookies (and 2nd-year-players) never played. But NFL rookies play all the time, and many of them thrive. So essentially your friend is at this point positing that 3 years is a magical number for college football players, that 3-and-free makes sense because absolutely zero college players are ready for the NBA up until they are 3 years removed from high school (e.g. Tua can't play QB in the NFL this season), but once past the 3-year barrier, there are many rookies who can play and even thrive. Do you think your friend makes sense about this magical 3? I certainly don't think so.

[Troublemaker]

Oh, I think you should put up more of a fight in that argument with your buddy because I think you have the much more reasonable and persuasive side. (Which is generally the case for the "there are some exceptions" side over the "there are absolutely zero exceptions" side unless math is involved; there are no exceptions to 5 x 0 = 0 :-). Your friend would have a better argument if, in the NFL, rookies (and 2nd-year-players) never played. But NFL rookies play all the time, and many of them thrive. So essentially your friend is at this point positing that 3 years is a magical number for college football players, that 3-and-free makes sense because absolutely zero college players are ready for the NFL up until they are 3 years removed from high school (e.g. Tua can't play QB in the NFL this season), but once past the 3-year barrier, there are many rookies who can play and even thrive. Do you think your friend makes sense about this magical 3? I certainly don't think so.

Following up on this a bit, 3 is not a magical number. For example, I am way, way, WAY more than 3 years removed from high school, and I certainly don't belong on an NFL field. It strikes me that the NFL has processes and procedures in place to determine whether someone belongs in their league, with the NFL Combine being front and center. So, those who wish the NBA would get rid of the OAD rule should also wish, at a minimum, for rising college sophomores and juniors to be eligible to attend the NFL Combine and eligible for the NFL draft.

If the NBA got rid of the OAD rule, what's the general consensus on how many high school players would go straight to the NBA? The top-10 ranked players in the class? Very likely. Players ranked 11 through 15? Likely, with exceptions. 15 through 20? They're maybe 50/50 on skipping college. But let's just set the number at 20.

Do we not think that there are 20 sophomores and juniors playing college football this season who could be playing in the NFL? Heck, I think the SEC alone could maybe clear that number. Also, there might be cases where an NFL team knows a player is another year of weightlifting away from being able to play but because the team likes the player's potential, they would draft him anyway and have him sit and develop for a year. These are decisions between employee and employer that are being denied to college football players right now until they hit the magical 3.

The NFL has been let off the hook for many years now. If one dislikes the NCAA/NBA/OAD setup, one should dislike the NCAA/NFL/3AF setup.

[75Crazie]

Why are you even here? Seriously, if you are THAT cynical about college sports, then why are you here? Why do you pull for Duke, because they were in the Rose Bowl during the Marx Brothers days, so I guess Duke brings in ringers too? You have just insulted every fan who enjoys the traditions. Seriously, why are you here? You have the right of course, but why?????? Why would you lower your standards to hang around with us dweebs who like the tradition????
I've said this before, but I guess it's worth repeating. I did have great pride in the resurgence of Duke basketball in the 80s and 90s. That was because, while I obviously knew that Duke along with everybody was recruiting athletes who could not make it into Duke on their own, I also had a great belief that the Duke athletes were of academic caliber and could get into some college somewhere on their own. And that belief was confirmed by the growing hatred of the community at large for the caliber and behavior of the Duke basketball players, preferring the visuals of programs such as uNLV and Michigan. So, I felt that Duke and Coach K were doing things just about as "right" as was possible at the time.

I still have that kind of pride for other Duke sports, even including football. I have lost that pride for Duke basketball, I'm afraid, and feel that Duke is recruiting players now who have no interest in a college degree. Maybe I am wrong in that, I don't know for sure; but that is how the optics strike me right now. And I have to say that I am very disappointed in the willingness of educated fans such as the ones on this board to embrace the culture of "amateur" college basketball and football right now. And as the money continues to flow into the networking system that college sports has become, I am firmly in the camp that the "students" providing the work effort that supports that system should be rewarded with some of those proceeds; I have no idea at all how that should work, but the concept of the "amateur" student athlete is so tarnished now that it makes no sense to continue to try to prop it up.

So yes, I continue to monitor DBR, and occasionally throw my biased opinion in when I see something in a football or lacrosse thread that disappoints me. I do not contribute to basketball discussions anymore because to me basketball is dead. I have great sadness making that statement, because from the 60s to about the turn of the century college basketball was by far my number one spectator sport.

[SoCalDukeFan]

The Executive Director of the NCAA - "the most injurious piece of legislation on college athletics."

A major college football coach and AD - “means the end of our athletic program”

Assistant NCAA Executive Director - “It’s very, very probably going to destroy"


They were talking about Title IX.

https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2019-10-02/college-athletics-reform-ncaa-doomsday-title-ix

SoCal

[Zeke]

With college stadiums not alocating enough seats for much of the student body; with college coaches threatening to take even more seats away from students because of poor attendance; with revenue sports athletes having there own dorms, training tables, and classes which the one and done players do not necessarily attend; my opinion is that the revenue sports are already not representative of the university and really have taken on a life of their own.
Why not dissociate the revenue sports from the university totally (keep the non-revenue sports) and let the FB and BB teams be a franchise completely devoid of the universities The franchise team should pay a fee for this and run their own business.They could pay whomever the want and what they want and be done with all the slime and scandals regularly associate with revenue sports and function as what they are a minor league. Players would apply and participate in the university only if they want to be regular students.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

I've said this before, but I guess it's worth repeating. I did have great pride in the resurgence of Duke basketball in the 80s and 90s. That was because, while I obviously knew that Duke along with everybody was recruiting athletes who could not make it into Duke on their own, I also had a great belief that the Duke athletes were of academic caliber and could get into some college somewhere on their own. And that belief was confirmed by the growing hatred of the community at large for the caliber and behavior of the Duke basketball players, preferring the visuals of programs such as uNLV and Michigan. So, I felt that Duke and Coach K were doing things just about as "right" as was possible at the time. -- on this we agree

I still have that kind of pride for other Duke sports, even including football. I have lost that pride for Duke basketball, I'm afraid, and feel that Duke is recruiting players now who have no interest in a college degree. Maybe I am wrong in that, I don't know for sure; but that is how the optics strike me right now. The optics are not great, but this OAD system is not Duke's fault, not Kentucky's fault, not even the NCAAs fault. You are free to stop caring about the BB team, and I can respect that to a point. I stopped caring about MLB after two strikes in my teen years and I've never gone back to caring. I also think you're too hard on the Duke players. Their interest in a degree may be questionable, but their representation of Duke while they were here was excellent for the most part.


And I have to say that I am very disappointed in the willingness of educated fans such as the ones on this board to embrace the culture of "amateur" college basketball and football right now. This is straw. No one here is "embracing" the current system. No one here is embracing the NCAA. What many of us are warning is that what is changing now is going to be a total sea change and it's being debated dishonestly, mostly void of the consequences that can be for seen. I reject this argument of yours.

And as the money continues to flow into the networking system that college sports has become, I am firmly in the camp that the "students" providing the work effort that supports that system should be rewarded with some of those proceeds; I have no idea at all how that should work, but the concept of the "amateur" student athlete is so tarnished now that it makes no sense to continue to try to prop it up. You might want to see how the NCAA has loosened things up on money being spent on the athletes, with state of the art student centers for athletes, world class training tables and physical care, and as much tutoring as they want. Clemson just spent 55 million on such a place. Does that pass your test of spending money on the athletes? Or not? All this plus tuition is well over 100K a year at many institutions of value per athlete - and clearly the vast majority of the athletes, even in the revenue sports, don't contribute to the revenues individually at all. You might want to ask anyone you know on scholarship while playing a non revenue sport how they feel about all this. Non rev sports will bear the brunt of this.

So yes, I continue to monitor DBR, and occasionally throw my biased opinion in when I see something in a football or lacrosse thread that disappoints me. I do not contribute to basketball discussions anymore because to me basketball is dead. I have great sadness making that statement, because from the 60s to about the turn of the century college basketball was by far my number one spectator sport.

Well I sincerely appreciate the thoughtful and honest answer. See bold comments above:

[vfefrenzy]

2. What is the mechanism in California to ensure/investigate compliance and if this goes national, the same question? If the California law goes national, would the NCAA be tasked with enforcing the new set of rules?

At least initially, I would expect enforcement to be done through the courts. Player X does a commercial for a local car dealer; UC-Whatever suspends (or benches) the player so as not to run afoul of the NCAA; Player sues school for an injunction and damages. Eventually there may be a government office established to deal specifically with these issues, but my guess would be that either this breaks the NCAA or the NCAA somehow gets it stopped by a court.

[Turk]

I believe it's best -- and most "fair" -- when every college player receives the same benefits. They already receive considerably more than "nothing." If you want to pay them, then I would prefer a system that requires them all to be paid the same.

I admire Stray's thoughts and comments on this thread, but I'd like to point out a couple of points that are being missed:

1. The players are already "being paid" in cash, and they're not being paid the same. Since 2015, the power 5 conferences agreed to include cash stipends to cover the true cost of attendance, using the federal financial aid guidelines. That amount will of course vary by school and city. All other Division 1 schools can also include cash stipends, but they are not required to do so. Alert readers might recall that the NCAA fought this simple allowance tooth-and-nail for decades. Guess what? After the original kerfuffle, no one cares any more (except the athletes themselves). And no field hockey teams died either, and no coaches took pay cuts, and no "practice facilities" were deprived of their custom pool table with the school logo emblazoned on the felt. (I'm looking at you, Clemson).

USA Today - Cash Stipends Work (https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2018/10/31/acc-players-cost-of-attendance-stipend-helps-in-many-ways/38345017/)

2. There is a huge difference between "paying the players" and "allowing them to earn whatever money they can". Again, this is no different than students on academic scholarships who make money via other means. Yes, the stars will probably earn more. Yes, the third-stringer might not be able to get any takers. So what? Welcome to the real world; why should they be deprived of the chance?

3. The shelf life of a college athlete is by rule no longer than five years, so this will also keep the amounts in question relatively moderate. Of course, there are both smart and dumb business people, and any scenarios of contracts and termination clauses and all that are just details that will get worked out over time. The point here is that this is a private transaction between a student and a third party. It takes ZERO money out of the school's pocket and has nothing to do at all with the NCAA.

3. Sooner or later, all the state laws under consideration will converge to some median; if not, I am confident that this might be the one bi-partisan issue that Congress could sort out in relatively short order. And if I were an AD in California, I would absolutely call the NCAA's bluff on any threats about not allowing teams into tournaments. The NCAA will continue to howl in misery and people will continue invent doom-and-gloom scenarios that will never happen, but the California rule seems like simple common sense to me.

4. Lastly, the NCAA can keep itself busy enforcing all the rest of its rules regarding recruiting and competition, including the "bagel rule", the "no texting rule", the "I can't be in the same gym with you" rule, the "let's have a 10:30pm tip-off because CBS is paying us a boatload of money" rule, and the "let's have football games on Thursday" rule. Perhaps in the face of these new laws, the NCAA can write up a batch of new rules on reporting and transparency, so that the playing field "remains" level.

I believe the California rule can exist without affecting the core of the NCAA"s athletic scholarship model and revenue stream.

[Turk]

The Executive Director of the NCAA - "the most injurious piece of legislation on college athletics."

A major college football coach and AD - “means the end of our athletic program”

Assistant NCAA Executive Director - “It’s very, very probably going to destroy"


They were talking about Title IX.

https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2019-10-02/college-athletics-reform-ncaa-doomsday-title-ix

SoCal

That's pretty good. The NCAA has been crying wolf forever, and guess what? There's still plenty of money to go around...

[ChillinDuke]

The Executive Director of the NCAA - "the most injurious piece of legislation on college athletics."

A major college football coach and AD - “means the end of our athletic program”

Assistant NCAA Executive Director - “It’s very, very probably going to destroy"


They were talking about Title IX.

https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2019-10-02/college-athletics-reform-ncaa-doomsday-title-ix

SoCal

Very interesting article. I appreciate that history lesson.

For those that didn't click the link, a little more background is probably helpful. This is an article which shines the light on the multiple times that administrators and the NCAA have cried wolf in strong terms on new changes that were implemented in college sports, only for all of those events to subside and business to continue on as usual. I think that's interesting and potentially compelling in some ways.

But with things like Title IX, the deeper macro context is that the US was generally entering a period of growth (vs the world) where the pie was growing. It appears to me that the pie is not really growing anymore in the US (vs the world), a view which isn't meant to be PPB but economic in nature. And further, football participation rates are declining, and declining fast. As such, there are at least two macro headwinds today that make the implementation of this rule scary. If the "money pie" doesn't grow, then simple math implies that money will now be reallocated more to players and less from somewhere. That somewhere is the key question, if you agree with the belief that the pie can't or won't grow.

If the pie grows, we are probably all OK (all being all stakeholders in college sports). If the pie doesn't grow, someone loses.

- Chillin

[RPS]

If the pie grows, we are probably all OK (all being all stakeholders in college sports). If the pie doesn't grow, someone loses.
That's true to a point, but misses an important factor. With (almost) free labor, there is obviously way too much money floating around now. That's why bowl executives and assistant coaches earn seven figures and "locker rooms" have big screen televisions at every "locker." Each BIG school gets something like $50 million from their cable network alone and the money needs to be spent. With that much money, no field hockey team needs to be disbanded.

[hallcity]

That's true to a point, but misses an important factor. With (almost) free labor, there is obviously way too much money floating around now. That's why bowl executives and assistant coaches earn seven figures and "locker rooms" have big screen televisions at every "locker." Each BIG school gets something like $50 million from their cable network alone and the money needs to be spent. With that much money, no field hockey team needs to be disbanded.

The thing is that there's nothing about this legislation that forces schools to pay players. It just prevents them from kicking players off teams because OTHER people pay them. If you think there's so much money sloshing around the P5 that they ought to work out a process for paying players, you may be right, but this legislation doesn't accomplish that.

[ChillinDuke]

The thing is that there's nothing about this legislation that forces schools to pay players. It just prevents them from kicking players off teams because OTHER people pay them. If you think there's so much money sloshing around the P5 that they ought to work out a process for paying players, you may be right, but this legislation doesn't accomplish that.

Correct to point out. And circling back to my point, one only need expand the Money Pie (my term) to include booster contributions to athletic programs along with direct revenues to the athletic departments, then you arrive at the same Money Pie I was trying to describe.

If you look at this as ALL interested stakeholders and not just kids and schools, it's more realistic to the discussion.

- Chillin

[killerleft]

1
1. Accepting basketball recruits knowing with 95% certainty or more that they are staying for one year. Maybe the one year is preparation for the NBA but how much of an education in one year.

2. Paying coaches 50 times or more than what is paid professors.

3. Accepting athletes whose academic qualifications are far below applicants who are not accepted.

Big time college football and basketball are big business. They mostly have little to do with educating students or preparing them for future endeavors. (The NCAA ads tell us how few athletes succeed as pros. ) I have no idea what will be the unintended consequences of all this and hope I live long enough to see them. However I fully understand why many want to see this change implemented.

SoCal

1-This is troubling. But the NBA is the organization that is allowing that loophole, and I can't fault Coach K or the other coaches from exploiting it. Let's close it, NBA!

2-The market determines the worth of professionals. But your point is taken.

3-Athletic endeavors have long been factored into the admissions process. I can live with this one. Just a look at the individuals on the Duke football team, and their overall success as students, gives me a good feeling. It is important to remember: It's a tired old NCAA mantra, but the overwhelming number of athletes really are NOT going pro as athletes. The Duke degree is something special.

[uh_no]

That's pretty good. The NCAA has been crying wolf forever, and guess what? There's still plenty of money to go around...

It also ended many non-revenue teams at smaller universities.

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/02/sports/02gender.html

I'm not denying the value of equal opportunity, just pointing out for many, it DID spell the end, and though the quotes are clearly in the context of bigger teams that likely were not cut, they're also not ENTIRELY wrong....maybe just mostly.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

The thing is that there's nothing about this legislation that forces schools to pay players. It just prevents them from kicking players off teams because OTHER people pay them. If you think there's so much money sloshing around the P5 that they ought to work out a process for paying players, you may be right, but this legislation doesn't accomplish that.

True, but you cannot have this discussion comprehensively without being in context of the PTP discussion....LeBron James, Jay Bilas and others have directly linked the NCAA paying players to this discussion just in the last couple weeks. These are all part of the same issue. And if the NCAA takes any action, you can surely bet that they will address outside endorsements as part of their plan. And some say this move will push the NCAA to implode in a way. It might.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

That's true to a point, but misses an important factor. With (almost) free labor, there is obviously way too much money floating around now. That's why bowl executives and assistant coaches earn seven figures and "locker rooms" have big screen televisions at every "locker." Each BIG school gets something like $50 million from their cable network alone and the money needs to be spent. With that much money, no field hockey team needs to be disbanded.

you're right, because all schools athletic departments make a huge profit.....NOT. The issue you address above is valid, but not a factor at 95% of the schools.

[Turk]

True, but you cannot have this discussion comprehensively without being in context of the PTP discussion...LeBron James, Jay Bilas and others have directly linked the NCAA paying players to this discussion just in the last couple weeks. These are all part of the same issue. And if the NCAA takes any action, you can surely bet that they will address outside endorsements as part of their plan. And some say this move will push the NCAA to implode in a way. It might.

I beg to differ. Of course you can have the California "side hustle" discussion separate from the PTP discussion. It just looks like we haven't been able to do so on this thread. It turns out that under massive public embarrassment and scrutiny, the NCAA finally separated the COA stipend conversation from the PTP discussion years ago, and that worked out just fine.

LeBron and the Bilastrator and the rest can do all the linking to PTP they want, but they're commentators, not decision makers. They can be ignored. The NCAA has no legal standing to address outside endorsements; the courts made that decision for them already with O'Bannon.

And those that say that this move might push the NCAA to implode are probably getting paid by the NCAA. The NCAA owns a billion-dollar cash cow called March Madness. Maybe I missed it, but I haven't heard one peep from any of the TV networks about whether they think the California law is a good idea or not, and I think the reason is that they don't care one way or another. (oh yeah, the 2023 timeline might have something to do with it too).

[RPS]

you're right, because all schools athletic departments make a huge profit...NOT. The issue you address above is valid, but not a factor at 95% of the schools.The "not making a profit" assertion is a canard because the schools don't make or bank "profits." The are specifically and intentionally non-profit institutions. They spend what they get (and sometimes more). For example, the University of Maryland Athletics Department recorded (https://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/terps/bs-md-maryland-football-mcnair-20181019-story.html) $94.88 million in revenue and $94.79 million in expenses over the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017 (the most recent I found). The Terps didn't make a profit! And that's with a BIG distribution of "only" $37.3 million; when the Terps are fully vested in 2021, they will get what long-term conference members get (now more than $50 million each). You should be able to run a college sports program on $100 million or more per year, "profit" or not.

There is more than enough money at P5 schools, but "profits" are irrelevant. Again, that's why the facilities arms race is so spectacular and why coaches are paid so much (e.g., Nick Saban is paid like a top five NFL coach and college assistants make seven figures). Schools have to find places to spend all the money.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

I beg to differ. Of course you can have the California "side hustle" discussion separate from the PTP discussion. It just looks like we haven't been able to do so on this thread. It turns out that under massive public embarrassment and scrutiny, the NCAA finally separated the COA stipend conversation from the PTP discussion years ago, and that worked out just fine.

LeBron and the Bilastrator and the rest can do all the linking to PTP they want, but they're commentators, not decision makers. They can be ignored. The NCAA has no legal standing to address outside endorsements; the courts made that decision for them already with O'Bannon.

And those that say that this move might push the NCAA to implode are probably getting paid by the NCAA. The NCAA owns a billion-dollar cash cow called March Madness. Maybe I missed it, but I haven't heard one peep from any of the TV networks about whether they think the California law is a good idea or not, and I think the reason is that they don't care one way or another. (oh yeah, the 2023 timeline might have something to do with it too).

You are conflating legal technicalities with rhetorical realities. You're going type B here, I'm going big picture Type A. Of course you can technically separate them, but the national discussion...is combining them already. It's not just on this thread. That's hardly insignificant. And it makes sense, as the motivation behind both issues is precisely the same. And the NCAA's reaction is awaited, and pertinent. Sorry, for all intents and purposes - except legal technicalities - they are the same issues - and when the legal issues are sorted, the NCAA will have to respond.



The "not making a profit" assertion is a canard because the schools don't make or bank "profits." The are specifically and intentionally non-profit institutions. They spend what they get (and sometimes more). For example, the University of Maryland Athletics Department recorded (https://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/terps/bs-md-maryland-football-mcnair-20181019-story.html) $94.88 million in revenue and $94.79 million in expenses over the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017 (the most recent I found). The Terps didn't make a profit! And that's with a BIG distribution of "only" $37.3 million; when the Terps are fully vested in 2021, they will get what long-term conference members get (now more than $50 million each). You should be able to run a college sports program on $100 million or more per year, "profit" or not.

There is more than enough money at P5 schools, but "profits" are irrelevant. Again, that's why the facilities arms race is so spectacular and why coaches are paid so much (e.g., Nick Saban is paid like a top five NFL coach and college assistants make seven figures). Schools have to find places to spend all the money.

Using a state university - a "university if" in the B1G (or SEC) as your example proves my point....yeah, a few schools are rolling in the dough and have to come up with creative ways to spend it all. Most schools are not. The "nots" include Duke and most of the ACC. Unless you're calling AD White a liar, and Jim Boeheim a liar.

[RPS]

Using a state university - a "university if" in the B1G (or SEC) as your example proves my point...yeah, a few schools are rolling in the dough and have to come up with creative ways to spend it all. Most schools are not. The "nots" include Duke and most of the ACC. Unless you're calling AD White a liar, and Jim Boeheim a liar.
I tried to be representative without doing exhaustive research. I used the Terps because I like to crack on them and because they are a state university and their data is public. I intentionally avoided a traditional power. If anything, Maryland seems to be on the low side. Ole Miss (https://thedmonline.com/ross-bjork/) (SEC), Kansas (https://www.kansas.com/sports/college/big-12/university-of-kansas/article231251643.html) (Big 12), Oregon (https://www.dailyemerald.com/archives/how-uo-students-spend-million-a-year-on-athletics/article_dc80c11b-64e0-57c8-b375-dc40c1cbecc0.html) (PAC 12), and Virginia (https://www.dailyprogress.com/sports/cavalierinsider/virginia-athletics-generated-more-than-million-in/article_6ddfb8dd-b18e-53dd-9993-3a75a731e62f.html) (ACC) all have athletic budgets well in excess of $100 million and spend essentially what they take in. P5 schools have plenty of money.

And, if we're a "not," we are still said to spend about $20 million per year (https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidching/2018/03/07/ncaa-tournaments-biggest-spenders-usually-rank-among-its-biggest-winners-too/#7ae902ae7a22) on basketball, roughly the same as Kentucky.

[SoCalDukeFan]

1

1-This is troubling. But the NBA is the organization that is allowing that loophole, and I can't fault Coach K or the other coaches from exploiting it. Let's close it, NBA!

2-The market determines the worth of professionals. But your point is taken.

3-Athletic endeavors have long been factored into the admissions process. I can live with this one. Just a look at the individuals on the Duke football team, and their overall success as students, gives me a good feeling. It is important to remember: It's a tired old NCAA mantra, but the overwhelming number of athletes really are NOT going pro as athletes. The Duke degree is something special.

was that big time college football and basketball has very little to do with the educational mission of the university. I think it is a false argument to say that players should not be paid for their likeness because that is not what college is all about.

1. I don't fault Coach K for the OADs but how many students would be accepted if they wrote on their essay that the plan to leave Duke after a year to become a professional poker player or video game developer or whatever.

2 You see my point.

3. I am proud of the success of many Duke student athletes and personally know several that only got accepted because of their sport and were outstanding students. But look across the landscape of college sport, un-cheat for example. How was the educational mission of un-cheat advanced but giving A's to players who never went to class or did any work? I doubt if they are the only case.

SoCal

[sagegrouse]

was that big time college football and basketball has very little to do with the educational mission of the university. I think it is a false argument to say that players should not be paid for their likeness because that is not what college is all about.

1. I don't fault Coach K for the OADs but how many students would be accepted if they wrote on their essay that the plan to leave Duke after a year to become a professional poker player or video game developer or whatever.

2 You see my point.

3. I am proud of the success of many Duke student athletes and personally know several that only got accepted because of their sport and were outstanding students. But look across the landscape of college sport, un-cheat for example. How was the educational mission of un-cheat advanced but giving A's to players who never went to class or did any work? I doubt if they are the only case.

SoCal


Here's a counterexample, SoCal. A 16YO violin prodigy says she wants to attend Duke for a year before going on a a world-wide tour. She's in, if she has competitive academics (or maybe a little less than competitive). Another: a successful HS entrepreneur and technology whiz wants to park himself for a year at Duke before continuing with his career -- maybe he just likes hoops. He would be admitted with highly competitive academic credentials.

Here's another: a porn star wants to spend a year at Duke and is admitted -- oops! Bad example.

[sagegrouse]

And Princeton found a way to admit Olympic gold medalist (at age 17) Chloe Kim :

[devildeac]

Here's a counterexample, SoCal. A 16YO violin prodigy says she wants to attend Duke for a year before going on a a world-wide tour. She's in, if she has competitive academics (or maybe a little less than competitive). Another: a successful HS entrepreneur and technology whiz wants to park himself for a year at Duke before continuing with his career -- maybe he just likes hoops. He would be admitted with highly competitive academic credentials.

Here's another: a porn star wants to spend a year at Duke and is admitted -- oops! Bad example.

Did you mean loovill? :rolleyes:

[Jim3k]

I beg to differ. Of course you can have the California "side hustle" discussion separate from the PTP discussion. It just looks like we haven't been able to do so on this thread. It turns out that under massive public embarrassment and scrutiny, the NCAA finally separated the COA stipend conversation from the PTP discussion years ago, and that worked out just fine.

LeBron and the Bilastrator and the rest can do all the linking to PTP they want, but they're commentators, not decision makers. They can be ignored. The NCAA has no legal standing to address outside endorsements; the courts made that decision for them already with O'Bannon.

And those that say that this move might push the NCAA to implode are probably getting paid by the NCAA. The NCAA owns a billion-dollar cash cow called March Madness. Maybe I missed it, but I haven't heard one peep from any of the TV networks about whether they think the California law is a good idea or not, and I think the reason is that they don't care one way or another. (oh yeah, the 2023 timeline might have something to do with it too).

^
|
|

This.

[uh_no]

The "not making a profit" assertion is a canard because the schools don't make or bank "profits." The are specifically and intentionally non-profit institutions. They spend what they get (and sometimes more). For example, the University of Maryland Athletics Department recorded (https://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/terps/bs-md-maryland-football-mcnair-20181019-story.html) $94.88 million in revenue and $94.79 million in expenses over the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017 (the most recent I found). The Terps didn't make a profit! And that's with a BIG distribution of "only" $37.3 million; when the Terps are fully vested in 2021, they will get what long-term conference members get (now more than $50 million each). You should be able to run a college sports program on $100 million or more per year, "profit" or not.

There is more than enough money at P5 schools, but "profits" are irrelevant. Again, that's why the facilities arms race is so spectacular and why coaches are paid so much (e.g., Nick Saban is paid like a top five NFL coach and college assistants make seven figures). Schools have to find places to spend all the money.

debbie yow saddled UM athletics with a huge amount of debt on the fball and bball stadiums. they're eating that now.

[Turk]

You are conflating legal technicalities with rhetorical realities. You're going type B here, I'm going big picture Type A. Of course you can technically separate them, but the national discussion...is combining them already. It's not just on this thread. That's hardly insignificant. And it makes sense, as the motivation behind both issues is precisely the same. And the NCAA's reaction is awaited, and pertinent. Sorry, for all intents and purposes - except legal technicalities - they are the same issues - and when the legal issues are sorted, the NCAA will have to respond.

I get the gist of your point, even though "rhetorical realities" sounds like an oxymoron to me, and I am missing the Type A / Type B distinction.

The big picture is that we've been so conditioned over the decades by the NCAA's scare tactics to equate "keep every single penny out of an athlete's pockets" to be the exact same thing as "pay to play". Clearly, the COA stipend and the California law prove that's no longer the case, but any such action automatically opens the whole PTP can of worms again, even if the topic at hand is beside the point and the NCAA and school revenue streams are completely unaffected. So you are right about that, only because casual fans don't pay close attention. I'll be honest and agree that the motivation in both cases is the same - to get a bigger share of the pie in the hands of the "student athletes" who generate it in a way that makes sense.

So how do you think the NCAA will respond? I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think the NCAA has a legal leg to stand on; if they go to court over the California law or in any other state, they'll lose because it's based on O'Bannon. The other actions initially aimed at the California schools so far seem like empty threats and non-starters to me. Maybe the P5 will have their own discussions and then tell the NCAA what they want to do in response to multiple states passing similar laws. IMHO (where I lent the "H" to Sage Grouse and he never gave it back), the smart thing for the NCAA is to get in front of the California law, pick an implementation target two years out, do some negotiating with the schools, and create new, legally compliant guidelines allowing outside income that still pretend to "keep the playing field level". (Guess which way I'm going to bet.)

[arnie]

I get the gist of your point, even though "rhetorical realities" sounds like an oxymoron to me, and I am missing the Type A / Type B distinction.

The big picture is that we've been so conditioned over the decades by the NCAA's scare tactics to equate "keep every single penny out of an athlete's pockets" to be the exact same thing as "pay to play". Clearly, the COA stipend and the California law prove that's no longer the case, but any such action automatically opens the whole PTP can of worms again, even if the topic at hand is beside the point and the NCAA and school revenue streams are completely unaffected. So you are right about that, only because casual fans don't pay close attention. I'll be honest and agree that the motivation in both cases is the same - to get a bigger share of the pie in the hands of the "student athletes" who generate it in a way that makes sense.

So how do you think the NCAA will respond? I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think the NCAA has a legal leg to stand on; if they go to court over the California law or in any other state, they'll lose because it's based on O'Bannon. The other actions initially aimed at the California schools so far seem like empty threats and non-starters to me. Maybe the P5 will have their own discussions and then tell the NCAA what they want to do in response to multiple states passing similar laws. IMHO (where I lent the "H" to Sage Grouse and he never gave it back), the smart thing for the NCAA is to get in front of the California law, pick an implementation target two years out, do some negotiating with the schools, and create new, legally compliant guidelines allowing outside income that still pretend to "keep the playing field level". (Guess which way I'm going to bet.)

Of course the NCAA is comprised of institutions that include schools like UNC, Miami, Auburn and a few others where cheating is embedded in their doctrine. No matter the guidelines, the leaders of these schools will continue to break rules and lawyer up. The playing field is not self leveling.

[devildeac]

debbie yow saddled UM athletics with a huge amount of debt on the fball and bball stadiums. they're eating that now.

Murland can always eat it...

[HereBeforeCoachK]

The big picture is that we've been so conditioned over the decades by the NCAA's scare tactics to equate "keep every single penny out of an athlete's pockets" to be the exact same thing as "pay to play". Clearly, the COA stipend and the California law prove that's no longer the case, but any such action automatically opens the whole PTP can of worms again, even if the topic at hand is beside the point and the NCAA and school revenue streams are completely unaffected. So you are right about that, only because casual fans don't pay close attention. I'll be honest and agree that the motivation in both cases is the same - to get a bigger share of the pie in the hands of the "student athletes" who generate it in a way that makes sense.

So how do you think the NCAA will respond? I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think the NCAA has a legal leg to stand on; if they go to court over the California law or in any other state, they'll lose because it's based on O'Bannon. The other actions initially aimed at the California schools so far seem like empty threats and non-starters to me. Maybe the P5 will have their own discussions and then tell the NCAA what they want to do in response to multiple states passing similar laws. IMHO (where I lent the "H" to Sage Grouse and he never gave it back), the smart thing for the NCAA is to get in front of the California law, pick an implementation target two years out, do some negotiating with the schools, and create new, legally compliant guidelines allowing outside income that still pretend to "keep the playing field level". (Guess which way I'm going to bet.)

I don't really disagree with anything in the first paragraph, except I take some exception to the term "scare tactics." I also am not one to ever defend the NCAA. I like the idea of the NCAA, but they screw the pooch on almost all execution. Big Eduction is rife with corruption and greed in sports and academics, but the sports corruption is just much more visible and reacted to much more viscerally.

As far as the NCAA reacting - I'm sure they'll step in a steaming pile again. That said, I'm not sure where they could go safely with this. When you start getting into the legal situation, you run into the inherent differences between business per se - and the business of sports. In business per se, Ford and GM are flat out competitors and both would like the other to go out of business. Both would like all other auto makers to go out of business. In the business of sports, there is a level of financial competition between, say, schools like Ohio State and Ohio U, but Ohio State is not benefitted by Ohio U going out of business. It doesn't do the LA Lakers any good for the Charlotte Hornets and all other small market teams to go out of business. In fact, quite the opposite.

The legal system has absolutely no way to thread this needle, because the non economic competition angle is simply not something that can be contemplated by law. There is one level where every single athletic department is autonomous, are is every single conference, and yet, they all need each other in a sense. Such is not the case with Ford and GM, or Coke and Pepsi, or Fed EX and UPS, or with Walmart and Target, or anywhere else.

As fans, we've all accepted - consciously or sub consciously - a flawed bargain: Big time college FB and BB will entertain us to no end, while paying for field hockey, golf, tennis, volleyball, track, baseball, etc - which will not entertain us to nearly the same degree - and yet we're glad they're there. FB and BB will allow schools and athletes to have their tuitions paid, and have world class training and medical care for all athletes, and healthy training tables, nice uniforms, nice stadiums, nice bands, good coaching, and ample travel budgets, and so on. Some athletic departments can build other mega structures on their campus for the athletes...student centers, dorms, what have you. All of that is good, if not perfect. All of it takes a helluva lot of money, money that few schools had just a decade or two ago, and money some still don't have.

On the flip side, we know coaches salaries are absurd at times, administrators' salaries maybe even more so. We also know that with all of the good stuff above, a school like NC Central cannot equal what Duke can do, and Duke cannot equal what Clemson can do, and Clemson cannot equal what a few of the mega universities can do. We do know that the mega schools can help the smaller schools by handing them a big check to come get their clock cleaned in a football game (until someone like App State upsets that apple cart...but that's fun too).

So this system above is what we have, and I think we are about to see - for better or worse - this system turned on its head. And I don't think we're likely to think what we end up with is any better. But we'll see...I do think in the next 1-3 years we'll see.

[killerleft]

A: Given the NCAA's position on an institution's responsibility to actually educate their athletes, I think this argument is a non-starter. We can safely assume that a free college education is worth pretty much nothing in many cases. See UNC.

B: Yes, it's worth something. But the NCAA strictly and artificially limits that amount of training and coaching they can receive.

C: Yes, that is worth something. However, if they are not able to control their own likeness and the exposure is far less than they'd get absent NCAA rules.

D: Quite often they don't have better options. Is that the reason to shackle them to the NCAA ways of doing business?

Why is the labor of a Daniel Jones worth nothing one year when he's at Duke and then the next year it's worth about $6 million? Why is the labor of Zion Williamson worth nothing one year when he's at Duke and the next year it's worth $10 million and that's before counting all his endorsement deals with Coke, Nike and others?

The days of using unpaid athletes to enrich the athletic departments and NCAA are nearing an end. Get on board or just quit watching.

Obviously, the year at Duke caused the great increase in a player's value. Without it? A much smaller return for the player.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

D: Quite often they don't have better options. Is that the reason to shackle them to the NCAA ways of doing business?
.


Grow up man. The situation you describe above....not having better options...is part of life at different times for every person on the planet.

[91Duke]

I suspect that this is going to get a lot of attention - apparently Coach K has come out (strongly!) in favor of the California legislation.

Tweet by Matt Norlander: https://twitter.com/MattNorlander/status/1181572975105056768

Quote: Mike Krzyzewski is in favor of what California governor @GavinNewsom did, said dozens of states will pass legislation by end of 2019-20 season .”We need to stay current with what’s happening. I’m glad it was passed because it pushes the envelope, it pushes the issue.”

[uh_no]

I suspect that this is going to get a lot of attention - apparently Coach K has come out (strongly!) in favor of the California legislation.

Tweet by Matt Norlander: https://twitter.com/MattNorlander/status/1181572975105056768

Quote: Mike Krzyzewski is in favor of what California governor @GavinNewsom did, said dozens of states will pass legislation by end of 2019-20 season .”We need to stay current with what’s happening. I’m glad it was passed because it pushes the envelope, it pushes the issue.”

It also likely benefits Duke basketball......as duke is among if not the largeest platform for college players right now....allowing them to capitalize on that is more reason to come here.

[Hingeknocker]

I suspect that this is going to get a lot of attention - apparently Coach K has come out (strongly!) in favor of the California legislation.

Tweet by Matt Norlander: https://twitter.com/MattNorlander/status/1181572975105056768

Quote: Mike Krzyzewski is in favor of what California governor @GavinNewsom did, said dozens of states will pass legislation by end of 2019-20 season .”We need to stay current with what’s happening. I’m glad it was passed because it pushes the envelope, it pushes the issue.”

Not surprised by this given some of Krzyzewski's recent comments, but I'm curious how people will react to him saying this.

I also personally find his words of support a bit hollow. I don't think there's a person alive with more individual power to "push the envelope" than him, so it's disappointing that he isn't more forceful about the NCAA and what should be done.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Not surprised by this given some of Krzyzewski's recent comments, but I'm curious how people will react to him saying this.

I also personally find his words of support a bit hollow. I don't think there's a person alive with more individual power to "push the envelope" than him, so it's disappointing that he isn't more forceful about the NCAA and what should be done.

Interesting take, by you and by Coach K. Here's how I see it regarding Coach K: at 70+ with the end of his career coming - he is not going to get bogged down into the details. He probably doesn't want to coach in whatever the new universe will be. His career spanned the time that college b-ball went from decent money to huge money. Could he push the envelope? Yep, he could, but it's not his job nor is it his obligation. I also don't think it's clear how he would push it. I don't think he would push the envelope ala Bilas theory.

Just a guess.

On a side note: heard the Sportschannel 8 show on local Raleigh Durham radio just now, and they were talking about the issue. Not only did they mis-characterize K's comments (a little bit), they brought up that even sports casters get paid because of who they cover. Man, that's taking it a bit too far, though it's true.