NCAA moves towards athletes getting paid

[Stray Gator]

To me the only people who have said "Shut up and deal with it" are the coaches and administrators who have said that to the players for, like, a century. YMMV, of course.

And yes, if the only way a fencer can get a scholarship is by denying Cassius Stanley making money he deserves, then the fencer shouldn't get a scholarship. My strong, strong belief however is that the schools could afford the entite fencing team if they wanted to. They might have to, you know, cut back on some coaches' and administrators' salaries. Or put a few less flat screens in the basketball team's dining room. Might be hard, but I bet they could do it.

As one who shares Dr. White's concerns -- and once again disagrees with Jay Bilas -- I'll be interested to see how those who now advocate these changes allowing college players to accept compensation for the use of their name, image, and likeness will deal with the consequences, both foreseen and unforeseen. Of course, we already know that these changes will transform recruiting into a bidding war for the services of blue chip players, which will create an even greater competitive imbalance between the elite programs with ample resources and the programs with teams destined to become homecoming opponents or to be served up as appetizers at holiday season tournaments. So we can assume up front that proponents of pay-the-players are content to further tilt the playing field in favor of the schools that have the most financially generous sponsors. But the introduction of monetary incentives is likely to result in other changes, not all of which can so easily be dismissed as insignificant.

Will those who are critical of economic disparities in society generally be pleased to see the emergence of an even greater gap between the haves and have-nots among college athletes? If we take away those flatscreens in the basketball team locker room to fund fencing scholarships, then only the Cassius Stanleys and a few other players will be able to enjoy the luxury of having a flatscreen. But as we're already witnessing in response to the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, when colleges find it necessary to trim their athletic budgets, they don't cut expenditures for the revenue sports; they cut non-revenue programs instead. So while a handful of star basketball and football players can look forward to driving shiny new SUVs and wearing bespoke suits and spending the off-season at their resort condos, that young person who can no longer afford to attend college without the benefit of a fencing scholarship may now be driving a delivery truck, wearing a company uniform, and spending weekends working a second job.

Will those who long for the days when players "unpacked their bags" and gave us a chance to see them develop as part of a team be pleased when the five-star recruit decides to leave in the middle of his freshman year because he isn't getting enough minutes, or enough shot opportunities, to earn the incentive bonuses he negotiated with the "sponsors" who paid him to choose their program? After all, we can't expect that savvy sponsors will agree to fork over generous sums for endorsements by star recruits, much less by established players, without insisting that payments be conditioned on some performance requirements. And how will the "pay-them-fair-value" folks feel when that disgruntled teenager who fails to meet those threshold requirements follows up his entry into the transfer portal by filing a lawsuit against the coaching staff, claiming a right to recover for his lost compensation on the theory that the limitations on his playing time were unjustified, discriminatory, and constituted an intentional interference with his contract or business relationship? Maybe a really creative lawyer even joins a teammate or two as defendants, claiming they acted in conspiracy with the coaches, or simply out of personal jealousy, to prevent him from reaching the scoring milestones in his contract by deliberately limiting his shot opportunities. For any skeptics who scoff at the possibility of such a lawsuit, I urge you to recall the Heather Sue Mercer case.

I could go on, but there's no need to further prolong this post. My point is simply this: While this change might appear at first blush to promote fairness for a few, I'm afraid it will produce undesirable consequences that are likely, on balance, to outweigh the benefits. In any event, I think the momentum to permit NIL compensation for college players is now too great to be impeded by the concerns of any person or group. It makes me sad, because I'm an old-timer who has enjoyed a lifelong love for the tradition and spirit of college sports, even while recognizing its flaws and impurities; and I fear this change will so radically alter college sports that the flaws and impurities will render the tradition and spirit I've loved an unrecognizable remnant of the past. I really wish that the kids who want to be paid could just go play professionally somewhere and leave college sports for those who still believe in the value of preserving a game where fairness in competition, even if not perfectly attainable, is more important than immediate monetary compensation.

[Hingeknocker]

As one who shares Dr. White's concerns... (clipped for space)

Stray, I appreciate your post and perspective. My thoughts below aren't really directly a response to you, because you're not the first to advance these arguments, but I'd like to highlight and rebut a few things.

1) I refreshed my memory on the Mercer/Duke lawsuit. Didn't know who her family was, and won't weigh in at all on the merits of her case, but between her and Giuliani's kid, Duke has managed to attract quite the M.O. of "certain kind of person whose kid goes on to sue Duke athletics." Yeesh.

2) If you're really worried about potential lawsuits from disgruntled players who feel like they were limited in their earning potential...has a lawsuit of this nature been filed - even unsuccessfully - in any professional sport, ever?

3) Based on history, we agree that if forced to cut budgets athletic departments will impose those cuts on non-revenue sports where they think they can get away with it. But for as loudly as I shout about paying athletes what they deserve, I would shout just as loudly at Kevin White or Coach K to cut their own dang salaries for once, before resorting to eliminating scholarships.

4) Are we still operating under the assumption that NIL rights would make a difference in how tilted the playing field is? That recruiting already isn't a bidding war? In the year 2020?? Brandin Knight as brought up before is totally right. Duke will be just fine. (But if not, and not paying the players is the only thing keeping Duke at the top, then we don't deserve to be there.)

5) Finally, as for the idea that it's possible for college sports to maintain some kind of purity that it once had? That idea has been a complete fiction since the very second schools realized they could recruit players instead of just relying on whoever happened to be on campus. So, since like year 2 of college athletics, the oft-lamented "glory days" have been a fantasy. Either we give up the idea of the fantasy, or we just return to the true original way of doing things and make it tryout-only based on the student body every year. Judging by the freshman intramural teams I played on in Randolph Dorm ~17 years ago, I suspect this is not the way people really want this to go. But I could be wrong!

[Stray Gator]

. . . 5) Finally, as for the idea that it's possible for college sports to maintain some kind of purity that it once had? That idea has been a complete fiction since the very second schools realized they could recruit players instead of just relying on whoever happened to be on campus. So, since like year 2 of college athletics, the oft-lamented "glory days" have been a fantasy. Either we give up the idea of the fantasy, or we just return to the true original way of doing things and make it tryout-only based on the student body every year. Judging by the freshman intramural teams I played on in Randolph Dorm ~17 years ago, I suspect this is not the way people really want this to go. But I could be wrong!

As I said, I love college sports "even while recognizing its flaws and impurities," and I "still believe in the value of preserving a game where fairness in competition, even if not perfectly attainable, is more important than immediate monetary compensation." The fact that the idealistic model of college sports played by student-athletes is no longer completely "pure" does not, in my opinion, justify dispensing entirely with the concept of amateurism as a desirable objective. Nor does the fact that some schools enjoy advantages in recruiting. equipping, and coaching athletes justify abandoning altogether the effort to maintain, as nearly as possible, a "level playing field." Finally, I mean no disrespect in saying I think your suggestion that we must either accept the compensation of superstars or resign ourselves to a throwback version of college sports played by ordinary students poses a false dichotomy through oversimplification. The subset of college athletes who would not be sufficiently talented to qualify for endorsement contracts, but would still be capable of competing at a level that would earn them a spot on a major conference team, is substantial; in fact, I'd submit that the majority of those currently playing on college scholarships would continue to do so if the superstars were suddenly whisked away in a fleet of agent limos.

I don't claim to have all of the answers. I don't even claim to know all of the questions that ought to be asked. But I don't see how you can introduce monetary compensation for players as an element in college sports without corrupting and contaminating the game to a degree that ultimately drains it of the essential spirit that makes it special.

[JasonEvans]

I think it is worth noting that folks seem to be jumping to conclusions about Kevin White's letter that may not be justified. White did not call for the NIL legislation to be reversed nor did he say it was a mistake. He merely stated that he is worried about the unintended consequences of it and he wants to hear answers to some of the tough questions raised about doing this. He is not wrong to voice those concerns. Even the most ardent supporters of giving NIL rights to the players (I consider myself among them) say there are reasons for concern and potential for problems.

That said, I think the current system is so manifestly unfair that we must rectify it right away and deal with the consequences as they come up. Continuing to deny these players even a fraction of what they are actually worth is manifestly unfair. It is wrong to allow the mostly white athletic directors and coaches to continue to make boat loads of money while denying it to the largely black athletes.

And one final point about one of the concerns opponents raise... many say they are worried about how this will impact recruiting. Well, the current system already greatly favors the big power players in the various sports. Look at the top basketball and football players. They don't go to smaller or even medium sized schools. Look at the class of 2020 in basketball and let me know when you find a kid who is going to a team outside of the power 6 conferences (plus heavy-hitters Gonzaga and Memphis). There isn't a single player in the top 75 who picks a "smaller" school.

Bottom line -- recruiting is already tilted in a big way. The smaller schools already have no shot at getting the most desirable players. In terms of recruiting, all the NIL changes will do it make the big boys battle all that harder for these kids and allow the kids to come as close as they can to realizing their actual worth.

[sagegrouse]

5) Finally, as for the idea that it's possible for college sports to maintain some kind of purity that it once had? That idea has been a complete fiction since the very second schools realized they could recruit players instead of just relying on whoever happened to be on campus. So, since like year 2 of college athletics, the oft-lamented "glory days" have been a fantasy. Either we give up the idea of the fantasy, or we just return to the true original way of doing things and make it tryout-only based on the student body every year. Judging by the freshman intramural teams I played on in Randolph Dorm ~17 years ago, I suspect this is not the way people really want this to go. But I could be wrong!

"Some kind of purity it once had..." Apparently, in your view, that died when schools started recruiting athletes. Schools have been recruiting football players for over a century -- players even changing schools during the season. I am afraid you would have to go back to the "flying wedge" to get any satisfaction out of college football.

We have 20+ sports at Duke. Serious, high-dollar professional expectations happen only in football and men's basketball and to a lesser extent in baseball. Maybe in women's golf. And highly-paid athletic careers result for only a few -- a fairly high percentage of Duke basketball players and a very few from football (in the Not For Long league) and baseball. Sure, women hoopsters can have nice careers and there's the occasional soccer player with potential. Most of the athletes at Duke and elsewhere really will go pro in something else (as the NCAA says).

There's a lot to like in college sports. I don't know why "recruiting" of athletes spoils the competition. The best in every Duke sport (and other schools') are recruited to some extent, even if it is only an edge in admissions.

[Chicago 1995]

I don't claim to have all of the answers. I don't even claim to know all of the questions that ought to be asked. But I don't see how you can introduce monetary compensation for players as an element in college sports without corrupting and contaminating the game to a degree that ultimately drains it of the essential spirit that makes it special.

The essential spirit that makes college sports special is a mirage Stray -- for football and basketball at least.** The extent to which its a mirage may have been laid bare recently by the Adidas investigation and the FBI wiretapping scandal that we've seen hit Oklahoma State, Arizona, Kansas, NC State, Creighton and host of other schools. But that's just the latest, deepest cut into the seedy underbelly of revenue generating sports in "amateur" athletics. Admitting there's a personal stake there, but I don't know how anyone can cling to any part of the NCAA mission centered around student athletes when our neighbors eight miles away got away with decades of academic fraud through admitting that regular students -- lots of them -- were getting fraudulent grades too, given the NCAA the out it needed to avoid punishing one (two?) revered Hall of Fame coaches. Penn State harbored a damned child molester but the NCAA couldn't do anything about that either. It's nothing new. Eddie Sutton's Emory Air Express Envelope to Chris Mills. A bidding war for Hart Lee Dykes or before him David Thompson that left multiple schools on probation in its wake. I'd also pose that the drastic, laughable imbalance in compensation contributes to how you have a football program like Iowa develop such a poisonous, rotten culture. Money's already destroyed the "essential spirit" that makes the game "special"

The only change that NIL is going to create is that it's going to pull compensating athletes (partially) into the light, and fans aren't going to be able to wax poetic about amateurism.

** While it is anecdotal, having had a niece be a partial scholarship athlete in as non-revenue a sport as one could image at a mid-major (by basketball standards) school, the experience there isn't too becoming of the "essential spirit" of college sports either. But it's just one example.

[Hingeknocker]

"Some kind of purity it once had..." Apparently, in your view, that died when schools started recruiting athletes. Schools have been recruiting football players for over a century -- players even changing schools during the season. I am afraid you would have to go back to the "flying wedge" to get any satisfaction out of college football.

We have 20+ sports at Duke. Serious, high-dollar professional expectations happen only in football and men's basketball and to a lesser extent in baseball. Maybe in women's golf. And highly-paid athletic careers result for only a few -- a fairly high percentage of Duke basketball players and a very few from football (in the Not For Long league) and baseball. Sure, women hoopsters can have nice careers and there's the occasional soccer player with potential. Most of the athletes at Duke and elsewhere really will go pro in something else (as the NCAA says).

There's a lot to like in college sports. I don't know why "recruiting" of athletes spoils the competition. The best in every Duke sport (and other schools') are recruited to some extent, even if it is only an edge in admissions.

To clarify - I don't believe that college sports of 2020 is lacking any necessary purity in order for me to enjoy the sports. In fact, the only dilemma I have in watching college sports is the knowledge that the players are not being compensated fairly for their value. I only raised the example of recruiting to dispel the notion that it's possible to return to some previously idyllic version of college sports. That version, essentially, has never existed. What has always been true is that college athletics has exploited the value of the athletes in order to enrich the coaches, administrators, and schools - the extent of that exploitation is on a spectrum and has varied over the years, but it's always been there.

[Phredd3]

I think it is worth noting that folks seem to be jumping to conclusions about Kevin White's letter that may not be justified. White did not call for the NIL legislation to be reversed nor did he say it was a mistake. He merely stated that he is worried about the unintended consequences of it and he wants to hear answers to some of the tough questions raised about doing this.

This is pretty much my point of view. It's a positive development to let the players get paid for their talent, which most of them have spent more than half their young lives developing, and their families have typically spent significant time and resources supporting. I even think that allowing NIL compensation, rather than direct salaries, in the end probably has the LEAST impact on the schools themselves, which otherwise would have fantastic IRS problems to sort out. But it is still a sea change, and it is worth taking time to carefully consider as many of the implications as humanly possible, and to prepare for the inevitable issues that even then didn't get sorted out.

The issue for me isn't whether or not this should happen, it's when and how. California's timeline of January 1, 2023, was already tight. Why is the NCAA accelerating that? January 1, 2021, is practically tomorrow. Take some time. It's more important to get it right than to get it fast.

[Stray Gator]

The essential spirit that makes college sports special is a mirage Stray -- for football and basketball at least.** The extent to which its a mirage may have been laid bare recently by the Adidas investigation and the FBI wiretapping scandal that we've seen hit Oklahoma State, Arizona, Kansas, NC State, Creighton and host of other schools. But that's just the latest, deepest cut into the seedy underbelly of revenue generating sports in "amateur" athletics. Admitting there's a personal stake there, but I don't know how anyone can cling to any part of the NCAA mission centered around student athletes when our neighbors eight miles away got away with decades of academic fraud through admitting that regular students -- lots of them -- were getting fraudulent grades too, given the NCAA the out it needed to avoid punishing one (two?) revered Hall of Fame coaches. Penn State harbored a damned child molester but the NCAA couldn't do anything about that either. It's nothing new. Eddie Sutton's Emory Air Express Envelope to Chris Mills. A bidding war for Hart Lee Dykes or before him David Thompson that left multiple schools on probation in its wake. I'd also pose that the drastic, laughable imbalance in compensation contributes to how you have a football program like Iowa develop such a poisonous, rotten culture. Money's already destroyed the "essential spirit" that makes the game "special" . . .

I disagree. You seem to be arguing that because some programs have cheated, often successfully, we should regard such recurring instances of corruption as reason to declare the entire system of amateur college athletics a failure -- and replace it with a system that actually embraces and institutionalizes the very element that is the underlying cause of the corruption: monetary compensation of student-athletes. (And for you to invoke as supporting evidence the child molestation scandal at Penn State is, to be charitable, the reddest of herrings; that abominable behavior had nothing to do with paying players or recruiting violations or academic fraud, which are the perceived causes of unfair competitive advantage among college programs. To be clear, I have never defended the NCAA, and would be the first to add my voice and vote to any proposed reform that would provide more effective enforcement of the regulations designed to promote fair competition and assure a level playing field.) I still maintain that adopting NIL compensation for players will prove to be a proverbial case of the cure being worse than the disease.

[sagegrouse]

To clarify - I don't believe that college sports of 2020 is lacking any necessary purity in order for me to enjoy the sports. In fact, the only dilemma I have in watching college sports is the knowledge that the players are not being compensated fairly for their value. I only raised the example of recruiting to dispel the notion that it's possible to return to some previously idyllic version of college sports. That version, essentially, has never existed. What has always been true is that college athletics has exploited the value of the athletes in order to enrich the coaches, administrators, and schools - the extent of that exploitation is on a spectrum and has varied over the years, but it's always been there.

Let me pose a conundrum. Most college sports at Duke and elsewhere don't make a dime for the school; yet some of these coaches are very well paid, certainly more than most professors. The students may get a partial or full athletic scholarship. How is the university exploiting the student-athletes when it loses money on the sport -- infact, makes no revenue at all in many cases.

Let's turn to the two revenue sports -- football and men's hoops. I would argue that there is a market for college football and basketball coaches, and schools have to pay the market rate for head coaches. The head coaches, in turn, negotiate good and sometimes really good deals for their assistants. It's important to be successful in these two sports because they are the most followed around the country -- which can be good for any U.-- but mostly because they generate the money to pay for the other sports. Or, interest in them on the part of the donors indirectly lead to contribution that pay the bills. Decisions to cap K's or Cut's or Dabo's or Saban's salary that of, say, the president of the university would be counter-productive in the extreme.

Now, athletes don't get paid beyond their school costs and don't get endorsement or a share of jersey sales or anything else. The trend is moving away from that model by allowing athletes to profit from their NIL. OK. Some of us, including Kevin White, are skeptical that it will look like the California gold rush or the Oklahoma land rush or the dot.com era as relatively few players are fending off indirect offers from a bunch of schools. But the law and NCAA rules are moving in that direction.

That won;t change the basic equation where a few really outstanding players are key to generating tons of revenues that go to pay for other sports and the costs of athletics administration (IOW, fat cat AD's). Should top athletes get a salary, as well, and how does that get set?

Anyway, lots of questions and not many obvious answers.

[Chicago 1995]

I disagree. You seem to be arguing that because some programs have cheated, often successfully, we should regard such recurring instances of corruption as reason to declare the entire system of amateur college athletics a failure -- and replace it with a system that actually embraces and institutionalizes the very element that is the underlying cause of the corruption: monetary compensation of student-athletes.

Both in terms of the history of cheating and the current Adidas/wiretapping investigations, a point I -- and many others -- are trying to make is that the some you emphasize is many if not most and that it's naive at this point to think that its merely a few bad apples spoiling the bunch.

I would point to two specific examples from the wiretapping cases that should be an indication of how widespread this kind of corruption in recruiting likely is in revenue sports. The first is that one of the schools involved was Creighton. Creighton's got a fine program and they've done well moving from the MVC to the Big East. They've got a great fan base and a pretty rich tradition of success. They also haven't been close to being a National Championship contender, well, ever. They've not made the Sweet 16 in the 64 team era. Creighton's not chasing top five recruits. They aren't a school that provides exposure and branding for their athletes on a national school. It's simply a solid, winning basketball program. A program of this caliber being involved in the kind of systemic cheating -- your word more than mine -- should be a sign this goes deeper than simply the usual renegade coaches/schools looking to make a splash. I'd also note that Brian Bowen -- source of Louisville's latest troubles -- was a very good, but not a difference making recruit. Bowen's not the kind of kid that's filled Kentucky and Duke's star studded classes of the last 10 years. He wasn't a sure fire pro, let alone a realistic one and done candidate who was going to be a lottery or even first round pick. He's a good player, but not someone that changes a program. That he was involved in the Adidas program with a pricetag like his -- six figures if I remember correctly -- should again be a sign that this is a bigger issue with a broader scope than the few renegades skirting the system we might have convinced ourselves was the case in the days of Sutton or Tark.

I also take issue with the idea that paying athletes is the "cause" of the corruption. That's the rule violation that the NCAA seems to solely care about -- hence my invocation of cases like North Carolina and Penn State -- but it's not the cause of the corruption. The cause of the corruption is winning and the status and financial rewards that can reap for coaches and administrators. Guys like Will Wade and Sean Miller or the folks at Adidas (and I suspect Nike) aren't paying these student athletes out of altruism. Will Wade wants to win. Sean Miller wants to have the arena in Tuscon that houses Lute Olson court bear his name. They want the fame and status and place in history that comes with winning -- and the money that comes with winning too, I'm quite sure. Sean Miller wants a paycheck like John Calipari's or Coach Ks. Rick Pitino wanted more than those two. Adidas and Nike just want to make sure they've bought and paid for the loyalty of the next Lebron James, Steph Curry or, dare I say it, Zion Williamson.

Compensating student athletes isn't going to do away with cheating. You're still going to have coaches who want fame and fortune and place in history badly enough to bend the rules. These incentives are still going to be there. What it is going to help reduce is the baffling imbalance in revenue distribution and power in college sports. It's a start to a fairer world -- both for student athletes and ultimately for schools, I think. The status quo is unsustainable at this point, anyway, and we've perpetuated this flawed, highly unfair system long enough. This may not be the perfect change, but change has to be made at this point. Starting here is better than nothing.

[Stray Gator]

Both in terms of the history of cheating and the current Adidas/wiretapping investigations, a point I -- and many others -- are trying to make is that the some you emphasize is many if not most and that it's naive at this point to think that its merely a few bad apples spoiling the bunch.

I would point to two specific examples from the wiretapping cases that should be an indication of how widespread this kind of corruption in recruiting likely is in revenue sports. The first is that one of the schools involved was Creighton. Creighton's got a fine program and they've done well moving from the MVC to the Big East. They've got a great fan base and a pretty rich tradition of success. They also haven't been close to being a National Championship contender, well, ever. They've not made the Sweet 16 in the 64 team era. Creighton's not chasing top five recruits. They aren't a school that provides exposure and branding for their athletes on a national school. It's simply a solid, winning basketball program. A program of this caliber being involved in the kind of systemic cheating -- your word more than mine -- should be a sign this goes deeper than simply the usual renegade coaches/schools looking to make a splash. I'd also note that Brian Bowen -- source of Louisville's latest troubles -- was a very good, but not a difference making recruit. Bowen's not the kind of kid that's filled Kentucky and Duke's star studded classes of the last 10 years. He wasn't a sure fire pro, let alone a realistic one and done candidate who was going to be a lottery or even first round pick. He's a good player, but not someone that changes a program. That he was involved in the Adidas program with a pricetag like his -- six figures if I remember correctly -- should again be a sign that this is a bigger issue with a broader scope than the few renegades skirting the system we might have convinced ourselves was the case in the days of Sutton or Tark.

I also take issue with the idea that paying athletes is the "cause" of the corruption. That's the rule violation that the NCAA seems to solely care about -- hence my invocation of cases like North Carolina and Penn State -- but it's not the cause of the corruption. The cause of the corruption is winning and the status and financial rewards that can reap for coaches and administrators. Guys like Will Wade and Sean Miller or the folks at Adidas (and I suspect Nike) aren't paying these student athletes out of altruism. Will Wade wants to win. Sean Miller wants to have the arena in Tuscon that houses Lute Olson court bear his name. They want the fame and status and place in history that comes with winning -- and the money that comes with winning too, I'm quite sure. Sean Miller wants a paycheck like John Calipari's or Coach Ks. Rick Pitino wanted more than those two. Adidas and Nike just want to make sure they've bought and paid for the loyalty of the next Lebron James, Steph Curry or, dare I say it, Zion Williamson.

Compensating student athletes isn't going to do away with cheating. You're still going to have coaches who want fame and fortune and place in history badly enough to bend the rules. These incentives are still going to be there. What it is going to help reduce is the baffling imbalance in revenue distribution and power in college sports. It's a start to a fairer world -- both for student athletes and ultimately for schools, I think. The status quo is unsustainable at this point, anyway, and we've perpetuated this flawed, highly unfair system long enough. This may not be the perfect change, but change has to be made at this point. Starting here is better than nothing.

I still disagree, but think we've made our differing positions sufficiently clear that further debate would not advance anyone's understanding or alter anyone's views. It appears inevitable now that you will get the changes you want, which you believe will "reduce . . . the baffling imbalance" and provide a "start to a fairer world." As a lifelong devotee who hopes to continue enjoying college sports for the duration of my time on this side of the grass, I truly hope that you're right, and that these changes will enhance the quality of competition and the entertainment value of the games. But I can't shake the skepticism that makes me sad to see this "improvement" -- which I fear will substitute one form of perceived unfairness to a few student-athletes for a much more pronounced and less desirable form of unfairness to the majority.

[Nugget]

The issue for me isn't whether or not this should happen, it's when and how. California's timeline of January 1, 2023, was already tight. Why is the NCAA accelerating that? January 1, 2021, is practically tomorrow. Take some time. It's more important to get it right than to get it fast.

Florida's law takes effect July 1, 2021. https://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...or/5041474002/

So, the NCAA, as a practical matter, has to do something--either getting federal legislation preempting the states' laws or writing new NCAA rules that comply with the most lenient state's law--before then.

[Phredd3]

So, the NCAA, as a practical matter, has to do something--either getting federal legislation preempting the states' laws or writing new NCAA rules that comply with the most lenient state's law--before then.

Fair enough. I missed that there was follow-on legislation already passed by another state. Google isn't very good at finding out what has passed and what hasn't (or, just as likely, I suck at searching for it). I still think it's moving too fast, but I suppose this shifts the blame for that from the NCAA to the Florida legislature.

[House P]

Decisions to cap K's or Cut's or Dabo's or Saban's salary that of, say, the president of the university would be counter-productive in the extreme.

I know a lot of folks don't like Jay Bilas's constant harping on the issue, but (at least) one thing he says resonates with me. Why does the free market work for everyone else in college sports, but it won't work for athletes?

Here's a thought exercise. As Sage points out, most folks would say that restricting coaches compensation "would be counter-productive in the extreme". But why? Wouldn't all the ancillary benefits which arise from restricting athlete's compensation also apply if coaches and administrators were also "amateurs"? Imagine how many additional scholarships for Olympic sports could be funded if coaches and administrators were "amateurs". You might even be able to fund a few purely academic (gasp!) scholarships with Bubba Cunningham's $1M annual salary.

Sure it is likely that the quality of the coaching and administrating would suffer if they were amateurs? However, I am sure that there are many highly qualified high school coaches who would jump at the opportunity to coach Kentucky's basketball team in exchange for free (luxury!) housing, free (gourmet!) meals, free education for themselves or family members, a small cost-of-living stipend, and tons of exposure through regular appearances on national TV. Sure, the best of these coaches would probably move on to a much better paying job as soon as possible, but the programs would keep on rolling - after all, most folks cheer for the name on the front of the jersey, not the name of the coach on the sidelines.

Yes, I am being facetious and, no, I don't begrudge Coach K or any other coach their salary. Also, I fully admit that there are issues with NIL compensation. However, I am not sure if these issues are sufficient to justify a system where the most valuable participants* in a multi-billion dollar enterprise are the only ones required to be "amateurs". Even if the life of a high profile college athlete is enviable to the typical fan, they are still dramatically under-compensated in comparison to other stakeholders in my opinion.


To very loosely paraphrase Wendell Carter's mother, "Why is it that Wayne Tinkle has an $8.6M contract, Joey Brackets gets paid whatever he does, and my son gets vilified because a sports agent may or may not have bought me lunch at Longhorn Steakhouse?!?!"



*If you have any doubt that this is the case, consider where we would be if Duke and Alabama had swapped football rosters for the past 50 years. Which team do you think would have the bigger following - the relatively small private school that regularly competed for National Championships or the large state school which struggled to make the occasional bowl appearance?

[Bluedog]

Decisions to cap K's or Cut's or Dabo's or Saban's salary that of, say, the president of the university would be counter-productive in the extreme.

Incidentally, an article recently popped on my news feed saying that Duke is going to have to pay a 21% excise tax on Coach K's salary based on guidance just issued by the IRS...or anybody with a salary above $1M. However, public schools are not hit by this because they can claim tax-exempt status as a government unit. Advantage to public schools??

IRS Rules Target Coaches at Duke, Notre Dame, Hospital Chiefs

The IRS issued guidance on Friday that implements a change in the 2017 tax overhaul, and levies a 21% excise tax on some non-profit employees’ salaries above $1 million. The tax could also hit many highly-compensated private college coaches as well as non-profit hospital executives

Yet there’s a big loophole: The law doesn’t apply to employees at many public colleges. That means Clemson University football coach Dabo Swinney is able to duck the tax on his more than $9 million salary, as is University of Kansas basketball’s Bill Self on his $4 million income. Those institutions can claim tax-exempt status as a government unit, and not as a tax code section 501 organization.

[uh_no]

I know a lot of folks don't like Jay Bilas's constant harping on the issue, but (at least) one thing he says resonates with me. Why does the free market work for everyone else in college sports, but it won't work for athletes?

they agreed to a deal. they are free to play in the G league or abroad if they don't like it.

[House P]

they agreed to a deal. they are free to play in the G league or abroad if they don't like it.

Fair point. That’s a good explanation of why the college experience is the best current option for many players. It doesn’t, in my mind at least, explain why the free market wouldn’t work for players like it does for everyone else associated with major college sports.

If the system doesn’t collapse when it allows Wayne Tinkle to negotiate the best deal he can get, why would it collapse if Tres Tinkle could also negotiate the best (NIL) deal he can get?

For the record, Wayne Tinkle is the head coach at Oregon State. His son, Tres Tinkle, was their leading scorer last season. While you could make the case that they were equally valuable to the team’s 18-13 performance, there is nothing remotely equal about the compensation they received.

[sagegrouse]

Fair point. That’s a good explanation of why the college experience is the best current option for many players. It doesn’t, in my mind at least, explain why the free market wouldn’t work for players like it does for everyone else associated with major college sports.

If the system doesn’t collapse when it allows Wayne Tinkle to negotiate the best deal he can get, why would it collapse if Tres Tinkle could also negotiate the best (NIL) deal he can get?

For the record, Wayne Tinkle is the head coach at Oregon State. His son, Tres Tinkle, was their leading scorer last season. While you could make the case that they were equally valuable to the team’s 18-13 performance, there is nothing remotely equal about the compensation they received.

Oh. my. The colleges run a system where the maximum an athlete can receive is the expense of his or her education plus a modest stipend for incidental expenses. You can opt in or opt out. The revenue generated above the cost of scholarships and (considerable coaches' payments) is used to pay the costs of operating non-revenue sports, including women's sports, which are required by the federal government (Title 9).

The resulting benefit is highly competitive sports across not only football and men's basketball, but 20+ other sports. In the revenue sports, although there are dominant teams, there are dozens of competitors -- more in hoops than football to be sure. It's the competition that generates the dollars from attendance, media payments and donations. It's big business -- in the billions ($10+ billion is one estimate).

Players are not required to participate in this system and basketball players have a growing list of options, not the least of which is the option to play for just one year in college.

And, of course, the vast majority of professional sports leagues operate under a salary cap --although the numbers can be quite high.

College athletics can not be a free market -- these are business partners, not just competitors, like the teams in the NBA and the NFL. There have to be "rules of the road."

Should star college athletes be paid more? Perhaps, but I don't know. I sure don't want to break the current system which has sustained interest in college sports for 100 years or more.

Anyway, there is much more that can be said. But this is a "general equilibrium" problem where one has to look at the complete system, not just how individual players are compensated.

[House P]

Oh. my. The colleges run a system where the maximum an athlete can receive is the expense of his or her education plus a modest stipend for incidental expenses. You can opt in or opt out. The revenue generated above the cost of scholarships and (considerable coaches' payments) is used to pay the costs of operating non-revenue sports, including women's sports, which are required by the federal government (Title 9).

The resulting benefit is highly competitive sports across not only football and men's basketball, but 20+ other sports. In the revenue sports, although there are dominant teams, there are dozens of competitors -- more in hoops than football to be sure. It's the competition that generates the dollars from attendance, media payments and donations. It's big business -- in the billions ($10+ billion is one estimate).

Players are not required to participate in this system and basketball players have a growing list of options, not the least of which is the option to play for just one year in college.

And, of course, the vast majority of professional sports leagues operate under a salary cap --although the numbers can be quite high.

College athletics can not be a free market -- these are business partners, not just competitors, like the teams in the NBA and the NFL. There have to be "rules of the road."

Should star college athletes be paid more? Perhaps, but I don't know. I sure don't want to break the current system which has sustained interest in college sports for 100 years or more.

Anyway, there is much more that can be said. But this is a "general equilibrium" problem where one has to look at the complete system, not just how individual players are compensated.

Lots of excellent points here. Perhaps my writing was sloppy (wouldn't be the first time) or perhaps it was my use of Bilas's term "free market", but I agree that there some sort of "rules of the road" are necessary.

I guess my larger point (and perhaps Bilas's) is that I personally find it hard to enthusiastically support the current rules of the road which impose extreme restrictions on athlete compensation while barely imposing any restrictions whatsoever on other (less valuable?) stakeholders -- especially when I consider that hundreds of those "other stakeholders" make $1M+ per year.

I have picked on Wayne Tinkle enough, and perhaps unfairly. So let me say that I am even more uncomfortable with the current rules of the road when they allow someone to receive more than $1M a year to run "a second-tier college football postseason game featuring third-place teams" made up of amateur players.

If we wanted to, I suspect there are ways to meaningfully adjust the imbalance between players and other stakeholders without breaking the entire system. Reform regarding NIL rights seems like a reasonable place to start.