California And The NCAA

[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 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.