i've completely flipped on the paying players thing

[BlazeOrange]

So what is the objective, to only pay the star players?

The objective isn't to pay anyone, but to allow everyone to earn additional income from outside sources while they're playing.

Endorsement deals are easy and companies that realize that star players won't be all that famous without a strong supporting cast will spread some money around to favored teams.

Video game naming rights could get tricky - might result in players having to negotiate some kind of blanket deal. Or the games might just have certain players in them. If a players union is needed as a conduit for a licensing agreement, then it would be a matter of time before they tried to get a piece of the TV network deals. And that slope would worry the universities.

 

[Briancuse]

The objective isn't to pay anyone, but to allow everyone to earn additional income from outside sources while they're playing.

Endorsement deals are easy and companies that realize that star players won't be all that famous without a strong supporting cast will spread some money around to favored teams.

Video game naming rights could get tricky - might result in players having to negotiate some kind of blanket deal. Or the games might just have certain players in them. If a players union is needed as a conduit for a licensing agreement, then it would be a matter of time before they tried to get a piece of the TV network deals. And that slope would worry the universities.

They can earn an additional income, they are allowed to have jobs in the offseason. The endorsement deals get tricky, you are going to create a pandoras box among college basketball. There are no more college video games, they stopped making them a few years ago.

 

[billsin01]

I was listening to Mike Francessa the other day, and he was talking about Rick Majerus. One of his players father passed away, and the kid didn't have enough money to fly home for the funeral. So Rick paid for him to go, even though the Ncaa told him it was a violation, and he didn't care. There needs to be funds available to a player who desperately needs some money.

There is money available for this type of thing. Perhaps there wasn't when Majerus did this, but there is now (link). I would imagine that, like everything else the NCAA touches, it's probably a less than ideal program, but the fact that it exists renders this argument (which seems melodramatic to begin with) pretty much moot.

 

[billsin01]

So what is the objective, to only pay the star players?

How is paying every single player the same stipend more 'fair' than allowing a star player to profit off his name or whatnot. I actually think people would be surprised how few of these guys actually got these types of deals. It would create an interesting rift, not so much between players, but between schools b/c the idea would obviously be to find some really wealthy CEOs and essentially have them bid for recruits.

My opinion is don't pay anyone but let them go pro whenever they want. To me, at that point, your choice is pretty clear -- don't play a sport that essentially is a part-time job b/c you don't feel like putting in that kind of time or play the sport b/c you love it or don't want to give up the dream or think it will help you get girls or whatever.

But if you favor a system where players are paid, the idea that they should all be paid the same seems like really flawed logic.

 

[Briancuse]

How is paying every single player the same stipend more 'fair' than allowing a star player to profit off his name or whatnot. I actually think people would be surprised how few of these guys actually got these types of deals. It would create an interesting rift, not so much between players, but between schools b/c the idea would obviously be to find some really wealthy CEOs and essentially have them bid for recruits.

My opinion is don't pay anyone but let them go pro whenever they want. To me, at that point, your choice is pretty clear -- don't play a sport that essentially is a part-time job b/c you don't feel like putting in that kind of time or play the sport b/c you love it or don't want to give up the dream or think it will help you get girls or whatever.

But if you favor a system where players are paid, the idea that they should all be paid the same seems like really flawed logic.

Here is the thing, if your a big company, why give a kid an endorsement now, when you can just wait a year till hes in the nba?

 

[billsin01]

Here is the thing, if your a big company, why give a kid an endorsement now, when you can just wait a year till hes in the nba?

I think the answer is that it's just a chunk of money you were donating to some athletic department anyway. Phil Knight is already pumping massive coin into Oregon -- all this deal does is allow him to make sure they are getting elite talent. The idea that the actual endorsement deal has a positive effect on the company's sales is probably secondary in these cases.

 

[Briancuse]

I think the answer is that it's just a chunk of money you were donating to some athletic department anyway. Phil Knight is already pumping massive coin into Oregon -- all this deal does is allow him to make sure they are getting elite talent. The idea that the actual endorsement deal has a positive effect on the company's sales is probably secondary in these cases.

Thats fine if your Phil Knight, or you have a big interest in the school you went to, but how many of these big companies care enough about college basketball, lets be honest most people only focus on college basketball come march.

 

[Eric15]

Here is the thing, if your a big company, why give a kid an endorsement now, when you can just wait a year till hes in the nba?

Because another company might get in there before you and lock him up for the next decade.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Thats fine if your Phil Knight, or you have a big interest in the school you went to, but how many of these big companies care enough about college basketball, lets be honest most people only focus on college basketball come march.

THEN WHY IS THERE SO MUCH MONEY

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

They can earn an additional income, they are allowed to have jobs in the offseason. The endorsement deals get tricky, you are going to create a pandoras box among college basketball. There are no more college video games, they stopped making them a few years ago.

Other than sham jobs, they want work in the summer, due to school and training committments.

 

[djcon57]

My opinion is don't pay anyone but let them go pro whenever they want.

Ultimately, this is probably the correct answer, but tell it to the NBAPA. Doesn't have to anything to do with NCAA.

 

[billsin01]

Thats fine if your Phil Knight, or you have a big interest in the school you went to, but how many of these big companies care enough about college basketball, lets be honest most people only focus on college basketball come march.

I agree -- there are only a few Phil Knights. But there are a lot of eastern motors (anyone in DC/Balt see these commercials). They have a bunch of sort of recognizable names like Gilbert Godfrey and some random defensive tackle and a former Georgetown player in their commercials. It's not some massive endorsement deal. And that's the point -- how many of those places might want to carve out some marketing dollars in return for floor seats and a few Tyler Roberson spots on tv and radio?

Don't really know the answer and obviously those guys aren't going to land you the top players. But if you grab a solid national company and 8 or 9 local companies do you have enough to field a top 25 class?

I would think maybe. Who knows -- it's an interesting idea though

 

[jncuse]

Trouble comes with the equality of programs. If you allow endorsements, there are 100x the number of boosters willing to "hire" these players to make appearances at their car dealerships for $5k / hour at schools like UK, Texas, USC, etc. than the mid-majors. Why would any high school player go to ECU when he can make 10x the amount of side money at UNC.

That is what I use to think as well. Until I realized - why are we trying to protect ECU if they can't compete. There are tiers in college sports. And there are several programs (the majority) who already know they will never have a chance at a national title even under the current system. So we are not treating people fairly, so a school like ECU can compete a little better, but not really compete either way.

Why can't another tier be created for basketball and football. If you can't compete, then get out.

 

[EastCoast2]

That is what I use to think as well. Until I realized - why are we trying to protect ECU if they can't compete. There are tiers in college sports. And there are several programs (the majority) who already know they will never have a chance at a national title even under the current system. So we are not treating people fairly, so a school like ECU can compete a little better, but not really compete either way.

Why can't another tier be created for basketball and football. If you can't compete, then get out.

Then why watch college basketball? Let's disband the NCAA and let these kids play in minor league basketball with no salary caps.

 

[upperdeck]

baseball and hockey make millions too and they pay kids what amounts to 10-20% of what these kids get on scholie to play minor league ball. you could argue these kids are over paid.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Then why watch college basketball? Let's disband the NCAA and let these kids play in minor league basketball with no salary caps.

Yes. Have developmental programs. Early identification and training. Love it. Return colleges to colleges.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

That is what I use to think as well. Until I realized - why are we trying to protect ECU if they can't compete. There are tiers in college sports. And there are several programs (the majority) who already know they will never have a chance at a national title even under the current system. So we are not treating people fairly, so a school like ECU can compete a little better, but not really compete either way.

Why can't another tier be created for basketball and football. If you can't compete, then get out.

My question is, why are we trying to protect ECU, and not the kids at Boise State that could make some money off of their popularity while they're students?

 

[Dave85]

Nice article on this subject:

"The payout rules are complicated but enticing. Even if your college basketball team doesn’t win a game, you win $1.67 million. A round-of-16 appearance rakes in almost $5 million. A Final Four run? $8.3 million.

What sounds like the country’s most lucrative office pool is actually how the NCAA splits up much of the $700-plus million dollars its men’s basketball tournament makes each year. The competitors in this pool are collegiate sports conferences, and this month a large chunk of money — nearly $220 million, according to NCAA projections — is up for grabs.

The “basketball fund,” as it’s simply labeled, is the largest pool of money the NCAA doles out to schools and the only one allocated according to competitive sports success. A closer look at where the money goes illuminates the stratified economic landscape of college sports, where the rich schools get richer and the players remain amateurs.

The NCAA “urges” — but does not require — conferences to share this money equally among their member schools. Of the 32 conferences that participate in the tournament, 15 agreed to answer basic questions about how they use the basketball fund. Those conference officials said that, while specifics vary from conference to conference, they expect their peers use the money similarly.

In general, officials said, larger conferences split the money evenly among their schools, who use it to help cover athletic department budgets. Smaller conferences, meanwhile, depend on the basketball fund to cover their expenses, and some award any extra money to schools based on their own complicated formulas. For a smaller conference, one surprisingly successful tournament can produce budget-inflating windfalls for years.

Conference officials defend the system as a fair way to share money that supports college athletics. To critics of the NCAA and amateurism in college sports, however, the only number that matters about the basketball fund is the amount paid to the players: $0."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/sports/ncaa-money/

Now if the colleges can figure out how to share, and there is 64 of them, they why can't they figure out a way to share it with the players? My original thought was pay percentage by the minute because I like math and percentages are so cool. But then with larger team sports like football maybe the better way to have it is if you are just member of the team on the roster but limited to scholarship players.

I understand people have strong feelings about players should not be paid. I understand there could be unintended consequences and the mechanism needs to be well thought out. However, it seems to me people are making this issue more complicated than it really is. The 64 colleges in the tournament get their money so it is possible to share.

 

[Cusefan78]

paying players in college sports won't work. Like people have said it would divide schools into three categories. The haves, the have a little, and have nots. Schools like Texas notre dame Ohio states would flourish schools like Syracuse may get some scraps and schools like nova would never get a top 300 player ever. It would totally ruin college sports. You would have a bunch of teams like the Yankees or Dodgers that can have anyone then the rest would be Pittsburg pirates. Atleast in baseball you can stock the minors and have an up and comer for a few years till he becomes a free agent. What needs to happen is the nba needs to allow players to come in out of high school. It's the only way to do it correctly. One and done rule is totally ruined the college game. Let them go out of school but if you come you're stuck here for two

 

[Ward]

paying players in college sports won't work. Like people have said it would divide schools into three categories. The haves, the have a little, and have nots. Schools like Texas notre dame Ohio states would flourish schools like Syracuse may get some scraps and schools like nova would never get a top 300 player ever. It would totally ruin college sports. You would have a bunch of teams like the Yankees or Dodgers that can have anyone then the rest would be Pittsburg pirates. Atleast in baseball you can stock the minors and have an up and comer for a few years till he becomes a free agent. What needs to happen is the nba needs to allow players to come in out of high school. It's the only way to do it correctly. One and done rule is totally ruined the college game. Let them go out of school but if you come you're stuck here for two

I agree with you in that if you make it open season/free market it would 100% lead to a gentrification of sorts in college athletics. The big state schools with huge fan bases cranking out 25-35k graduates a year would price themselves into a whole other level in terms of being able to compete. Schools with wealthy alumni and national non-alumni fan bases would probably be able to hold their own but most schools smaller in size would get washed out.

While this isn't the most PC take I don't get the logic that if you pay a football player who is a key player in a program that brings millions into the school you have to pay the random student athlete who plays in front of 14 people on a Wednesday afternoon. It just doesn't correlate to any other labor economics situation in the world. I don't know the answer and know there are people far, far more intelligent than I who could probably build some sort of compensation model that makes sense but I think players of the big time sports should be paid.

Out of curiosity though, why do you think one and done ruined the college game? I think it's far from ideal but atleast we have some great talent playing for a year rather than seeing it go straight to the draft.

 

[Newhouser]

Here is the thing, if your a big company, why give a kid an endorsement now, when you can just wait a year till hes in the nba?

Because some kids shelf life in terms of notoriety and marketing ends at the college level - Adam Morrisson, Jimmer, quite a few Cuse players I can think of as well.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I don't know the answer and know there are people far, far more intelligent than I who could probably build some sort of compensation model that makes sense but I think players of the big time sports should be paid.

The compensation model that makes sense is to allow the players to sign their own endorsements.

People keep thinking about high profile football and basketball players, but any athlete with popularity would be benefitting from that, and that's a good thing.

 

[billsin01]

While this isn't the most PC take I don't get the logic that if you pay a football player who is a key player in a program that brings millions into the school you have to pay the random student athlete who plays in front of 14 people on a Wednesday afternoon. It just doesn't correlate to any other labor economics situation in the world. I don't know the answer and know there are people far, far more intelligent than I who could probably build some sort of compensation model that makes sense but I think players of the big time sports should be paid.

My take on this is that the idea that athletes are getting paid is tied either to the value of their own individual likeness and/or that they are basically working a full-time job in addition to going to classes. I guess the one objection to this would be if you favored a system where it was just truly a free market with players being paid like free agents by the universities to play for the teams, but I don't think too many people are down for that system (I could be wrong).

But to me, the issue you have is not one of PC but one of not entirely answering the question of players 'being taken advantage of.' Because if the pay is for how hard these kids are working, then you have to pay them all b/c even field hockey players (or pick any other sport) are putting in major hours to play their sports. However that setup is not remotely fair to the donovan mcnabbs or Carmelos of the world who probably should be allowed to make a lot off their individual exploits and popularity.

However, if it's based on marketability, then really you're talking about a handful of football players and a couple hoops players who are actually going to make any money in that system. For Syracuse specifically maybe a female hoops player and a couple lax guys, but still a really small number. I also think you get into this thing where players are then spending huge amounts of time showing up to do 2 hours of autographs at car shows and stuff, which is fine but kind of annoying and a little pathetic. Not sure it's in the best interest of the player or the university, to be honest.

Out of curiosity though, why do you think one and done ruined the college game? I think it's far from ideal but atleast we have some great talent playing for a year rather than seeing it go straight to the draft.

I hate the one-and-done rule personally b/c no one sticks around at all. I'd rather Donte Greene had just gone to the nba (nothing personally against him at all, he seems like a decent kid) then jack threes up at the cuse for a year and then bounce despite not even scratching the surface of his ability. I'd rather have a setup where if he was desperate to get paid, he could just go. Otherwise he commits for two years to the college game. I just feel like everybody wins in that scenario as opposed to now when everyone and their brother is declaring every season.

 

[billsin01]

The compensation model that makes sense is to allow the players to sign their own endorsements.

People keep thinking about high profile football and basketball players, but any athlete with popularity would be benefitting from that, and that's a good thing.

Do you, as devil's advocate b/c I think your solution is the best that I've heard, worry about what those third-party contracts could get these kids into? I mean, I'm all for kids not getting screwed over by bloated universities sitting on $9B endowments, but is it actually good for teh university or the kid to be doing 25 autograph signings a year, shooting a few commercials, making live appearances all over, wearing Whole Foods or Cole Muffler gear everywhere? Does it get, potentially, complicated and overwhelming aside from just being unsightly and sort of sad?

 

[billsin01]

baseball and hockey make millions too and they pay kids what amounts to 10-20% of what these kids get on scholie to play minor league ball. you could argue these kids are over paid.

Yeah, I don't know that I'd argue they are overpaid or even that minor league players are underpaid (I mean, ultimately it's not like most minor league franchises are raking in cash). But I agree with the general point that I'm not really sure these kids are underpaid. When I was at school, the lacrosse dudes got the best classtimes, the easiest professors, tutors (not to mention an awful lot of cheating), had huge parties, benefited from celebrity status on campus (girls, etc.). I don't remember any of them looking destitute. Same went for the basketball and soccer guys.

I don't know. I hate that these universities seem to make millions off of kids while sitting on massive endowments but I also don't really feel like the kids get that terrible a deal either. And the point on the minor leagues is a good one b/c that would be the alternative for the NFL and NBA and I'm pretty sure if you took any P5 football player -- ANY player -- and had him ride around on a road trip with an A ball baseball player, they'd be like 'thanks but no thanks.'