i've completely flipped on the paying players thing

[upperdeck]

if you start paying them you may have to tax them as well and it would actually net out as a loss

 

[OttoinGrotto]

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?

The reason why I like endorsements is because companies will care about attaching their brand to a kid. They're not going to want a kid that flunks out of classes, or that gets in to trouble. I think that gets overlooked, but it would matter.

 

[Hoo's That]

Since everyone else is fantasizing, I'll join in, too. Totally shut off all college facilities to the pros. No more "pro days". No more seats for pro scouts. No more giving them film. You want access to young player, then bball and fb need to form their own minor league systems like baseball has. College sports then follow the Ivy/D-3 model, demonstrated need-based aid only. (Look at the demographics of D-3 and the Ivies, while you're at it.)

There's a demographic storm that is going to hit college sports eventually. It's known as about 53% of college students right now are women. Your write-off of Title IX and non-revs directly affect them. How many of them will pony up the bucks in the future that the dying-off wave of men do now? They may be more willing to give say $5K a year to field hockey than to football. Another demographic question, are millennials as interested in non-participation sports as previous generations were?

 

[Ward]

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.

I agree, it's a good thing to help some of these kids get a piece of the revenue stream.

The argument isn't if it will be good for those players or not, everyone agrees it will be great for them. The argument is by setting up that sort of system you would be creating a situation that inevitably would become very much a tiered "haves" and "have nots". It would drastically change football and men's basketball and the competitive landscape currently in place. Again, it's great for the kids who will be able to benefit but it would have a huge impact on other parts of the sport that help prop up the popularity to begin with.

I'll selfishly use SU as an example to show the flaw in that plan. Ohio St, undergrad enrollment is 64,000, Georgia is 35,000, Alabama 36,000 etc. SU has 15,000 undergrads many who move out of the local area. A wealthy alumnus or one who is a business owner living in Los Angeles, Maryland, Florida, Texas isn't going to have an SU player do a local commercial/autograph signing for them across the country. Ohio State, Georgia, Tennessee, IU, Alabama have a much larger pool of alumni, plenty of who are reasonably local to the school's campus where the particular sport is relevant, and would have at least 2-4x the number of opportunities for those players to cash in on endorsement opportunities.

Why as a high school kid am I considering a school that can offer me a fraction of what another school can in endorsements during my peak "cash in" years? The draw of of "prestige" at SU basketball instead of a Georgia quickly goes away after a few recruiting cycles when the talent distribution starts washing out some of these other schools and the schools like Georgia and Alabama have big years with the new competitive advantage to attract talent.

(Bolded for the TL;DR crowd - even though still probably TL)

The kids should be paid but that would have huge, huge impacts on other parts of the sport.

 

[BlazeOrange]

The argument isn't if it will be good for those players or not, everyone agrees it will be great for them. The argument is by setting up that sort of system you would be creating a situation that inevitably would become very much a tiered "haves" and "have nots". It would drastically change football and men's basketball and the competitive landscape currently in place. Again, it's great for the kids who will be able to benefit but it would have a huge impact on other parts of the sport that help prop up the popularity to begin with.

We already have tiered haves/have nots. Some schools might switch categories due to size/# of interested sponsors, but they still have a say. An endorsement-based system still leaves the schools current funding in place to spend on facilities and coaching. Keep up with those factors, along with any historical prestige, and they can make a case to players that they will be marketable while playing there.

Basketball in particular doesn't have enough roster spots for a small group of elites to ruin the competition. How much more could a Kentucky do to improve the quality of players they've been getting? And they still aren't a given in the title picture. The one and done situation would actually help spread talent around as top players (especially at the same position) will want to go where they can be The Man for a season. Sponsors would also pay more for that - e.g, the deals with the #1 and #2 ranked point guards in the country would be worth less if they are splitting time on the same team.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Why as a high school kid am I considering a school that can offer me a fraction of what another school can in endorsements during my peak "cash in" years? The draw of of "prestige" at SU basketball instead of a Georgia quickly goes away after a few recruiting cycles when the talent distribution starts washing out some of these other schools and the schools like Georgia and Alabama have big years with the new competitive advantage to attract talent.

I think you're drastically underestimating how the returns would diminish for these schools with huge alumni groups with fat stacks of cash. People fighting the endorsements idea keep making the assumptions that a) alumni resources in some places are infinite (they aren't) and b) that those alumni would happily continue dumping money on players that don't accomplish much. I also think that people are underestimating that a lot of elite athletes want to be the top dog. Yeah, they want to play with good players, but they also want to be showcased. Being the number one guy someplace can be very lucrative, and potentially better for the longterm prospects.

 

[Ward]

I think you're drastically underestimating how the returns would diminish for these schools with huge alumni groups with fat stacks of cash. People fighting the endorsements idea keep making the assumptions that a) alumni resources in some places are infinite (they aren't) and b) that those alumni would happily continue dumping money on players that don't accomplish much. I also think that people are underestimating that a lot of elite athletes want to be the top dog. Yeah, they want to play with good players, but they also want to be showcased. Being the number one guy someplace can be very lucrative, and potentially better for the longterm prospects.

It's not about having infinite resources, it's about having a significantly larger number of resources than others. How does point b not work with a school similar in size to SU? Say 20% decide they're tired of not getting much in return from paying guys. SU might go from a pool of 30 donors to 24, Alabama goes from a pool of 70 to 56, Ohio State from 120 to 96, etc.

Also, we already see evidence where this isn't true in big time college football. There's an article linked below that talks about the "bag men" down south with football. They understand not everyone is going to be a star but they keep them happy and keep it going because they know they most likely will become a high school level coach in the future and you need them to still have positive feelings towards the program. It's the never ending pursuit of the next championship and feeling like you're just a couple contributions away from getting the last player or two to capture the elusive title. There are no shortage of people willing to pitch in if it means their school will win a couple more games the next year. To think these bigger schools wouldn't flex their muscles and bully their way to separation is wishful thinking.


http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/4/10/5594348/college-football-bag-man-interview

 

[721Comstock]

It's like the old adage
"I don't have to outrun the bear. That's impossible.
I just have to outrun YOU."

Bama and the Ess Eee See and tOSU and the other huge land grant schools, plus Oregon (Nike), MD (UA), or Kentucky in hoops, etc don't need infinity $'s -
they just need to be able to outspend schools like Syracuse for top recruits.

Which they can easily do.
(Some would say they already are)

Can you imagine if Cal can legally tell 5* recruits to come to UK because they'll get a $100k endorsement deal to whichever booster's business wants to offer it?

And if those players don't pan out, or leave for the NBA, then he offers that deal to somebody in the next class of 5* recruits.

 

[Ward]

We already have tiered haves/have nots. Some schools might switch categories due to size/# of interested sponsors, but they still have a say. An endorsement-based system still leaves the schools current funding in place to spend on facilities and coaching. Keep up with those factors, along with any historical prestige, and they can make a case to players that they will be marketable while playing there.

Basketball in particular doesn't have enough roster spots for a small group of elites to ruin the competition. How much more could a Kentucky do to improve the quality of players they've been getting? And they still aren't a given in the title picture. The one and done situation would actually help spread talent around as top players (especially at the same position) will want to go where they can be The Man for a season. Sponsors would also pay more for that - e.g, the deals with the #1 and #2 ranked point guards in the country would be worth less if they are splitting time on the same team.

I agree, we already have the haves/have nots, but the have nots can still compete. Villanova isn't sniffing a national championship in the system you pushed forward. I'm not a proponent of the current structure by any means but at least now Villanova can win a national championship with inferior facilities and a smaller local fan base. Like I said, it wouldn't be a problem for the players because they'r being compensated. The same number of wins and talent will exist but be redistributed to a much more concentrated set of schools that have the superior resources.

Next bolded part, do the crowds keep coming to the Dome the way they are if we aren't competing at nearly the same level as we have the past ~10 years? Look at the attendance decrease this year after just 1-2 years of a dip in success. What do we do to fund facilities upgrades, pay top level coaches, etc. if our revenue from attendance and just overall in general drops? The gap widens.

You already see Kentucky get the top guys every year who are sold on playing at a big time brand with exposure and playing against the best every day in practice. The lottery picks aren't going to stay in school to collect ~$25-50k in Lexington if a multi-million dollar contract is waiting for them so the next crop will come in. The difference is the guys who are late first rounders/second rounders stay because they can afford to wait and still gather pocket change in school. In football, it's pretty widely accepted that guys will wait their turn at the big time programs.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

To think these bigger schools wouldn't flex their muscles and bully their way to separation is wishful thinking.

It's not that I don't think they'll flex their muscles. It's that I don't care.

The real issue is that student-athletes are prohibited from benefiting from their identity, while institutions are free to disproportionately cash in on them. That's the issue.

 

[Ward]

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.



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.

It really is an interesting topic and one that you would think some of the top labor economists would find fascinating. My guess is many of them are affiliated with universities who are quick to squash any studies or research on it for obvious reasons. It's a slippery slope because I agree the women's field hockey team and volleyball teams work real hard but unfortunately just because you work hard doesn't mean you're generating money to make a claim that you should be paid.

This is probably too basic to ever work and I invite others to poke holes in the concept but what if you just gave football and basketball teams a salary cap on what they could pay players on the team each year and installed a regulating party that was VERY strict on anyone providing compensation outside the "salary" for each player? First sign of stepping outside the lines you get hit with a postseason ban and if all the AD's and coaches respected that set up it could work. This helps erase some of the competitive advantages I mentioned in the endorsement compensation thread and also helps redistribute talent to a wider set of schools. Say UK only has $30k left to give but Tennessee has $45k maybe they decide to go to Tennessee. On the other side, maybe I'm down to North Carolina and Wake Forest and UNC has $25k left and Wake has $30-35k but I grew up a UNC fan or am willing to sacrifice that extra $5-10k to play at the school I like better. Schools with the resources can still use that advantage by pouring it into facilities and offering superior coaching than other schools. Same transfer rules.

Just throwing it out there as one approach or idea.

 

[EastCoast2]

We already have tiered haves/have nots.

This is like saying "I'm kind of chunky at 5'10 220 lbs, so it makes no difference to me to get even fatter and balloon up to 320 lbs."

If you think the current system of "haves and have nots" would be comparable to the haves and have nots under a system that sees players paid unlimited amounts, you need to understand the demand of college athletics. Yes we get 35,000 fans in the dome, but most SEC schools get 90,000+ fans to their stadiums and literally millions more watching at home.

 

[Ward]

It's not that I don't think they'll flex their muscles. It's that I don't care.

The real issue is that student-athletes are prohibited from benefiting from their identity, while institutions are free to disproportionately cash in on them. That's the issue.

That contradicts your series of posts claiming it wouldn't make as big a difference as I've been claiming but whatever...

I agreed that was the issue and stated multiple times I am a proponent of paying the players.

My argument is that your approach wouldn't work and is short sighted. As the divide grows and you start to see drops in attendance at schools home games because their teams aren't good anymore, dips in ratings because those fan bases lose interest, the NCAA tournament isn't as popular because the gap is so wide there aren't any upsets on Day 1 and 2 that people tune in for so TV deals aren't as big - the money generated dries up or stunts in growth. That hurts the sport as whole which trickles down to hurting the players and their maximum potential to be compensated.

 

[EastCoast2]

That contradicts your series of posts claiming it wouldn't make as big a difference as I've been claiming but whatever...

I agreed that was the issue and stated multiple times I am a proponent of paying the players.

My argument is that your approach wouldn't work and is short sighted. As the divide grows and you start to see drops in attendance at schools because their teams aren't good anymore, dips in ratings because those fan bases lose interest, the NCAA tournament isn't as popular because the gap is so wide there aren't any upsets on Day 1 and 2 that people tune in for so TV deals aren't as big - the money generated dries up or stunts in growth. That hurts the sport as whole which trickles down to hurting the players and their maximum potential to be compensated.

Agree with this. You would end up with between 10 and 20 powerhouses that would get the top 60 players every single year. Entire fanbases, states, and regions would lose interest in NCAAB and focus more attention to the NBA. Which colleges in the mid-atlantic and northeast could compete? None.

 

[EastCoast2]

Since most of us reside on the East Coast, I'll say this:

Syracuse, Boston College, UConn, Rutgers, Seton Hall, Pittsburgh, Villanova, Georgetown, and St. John's would become glorified Division 2 programs. We'd be forced to watch Final Fours of Arizona State, Ohio State, UCF, and FIU every single year.

 

[triplethrea]

The big secret is that every major D-1 school already pays players hush-hush money. Nowhere near the amount if it was a free market, but still 5 or 6 figures. This whole PayCal thing is misdirection, everybody is doing it and has been doing it for years.

So for all the people saying Syracuse would get outbid, Syracuse would be exactly where they are today, because they are already bidding on and winning and losing players.

Dirty, dirty business folks. And fixed. But that's a different story. There's a reason I don't post much anymore. Or watch games for that matter.

 

[EastCoast2]

So for all the people saying Syracuse would get outbid, Syracuse would be exactly where they are today, because they are already bidding on and winning and losing players.

What are you basing this on? Is this just your opinion? Do you really think Syracuse has the alumni network and willing donors to compete with the fanbase/alumni network/corporate sponsors of Ohio State and Arizona State? There is no way we get McCullough, MCW, Battle, Fab, Rak, Dion, etc. Get used to getting excited over Kaleb Joseph and Mookie Jones.

 

[billsin01]

It really is an interesting topic and one that you would think some of the top labor economists would find fascinating. My guess is many of them are affiliated with universities who are quick to squash any studies or research on it for obvious reasons. It's a slippery slope because I agree the women's field hockey team and volleyball teams work real hard but unfortunately just because you work hard doesn't mean you're generating money to make a claim that you should be paid.

This podcast kind of touches on it a little. And I agree on your point with field hockey or volleyball, but I just mean a lot of the support for the paying athletes comes from a labor law type argument that these kids are working jobs, essentially. If that's the argument then everyone will have a legit claim to get paid.

But as I said, I really have zero problem with them not being paid so I don't have a dog in the fight regarding which system is implemented.

 

[Ward]

This podcast kind of touches on it a little. And I agree on your point with field hockey or volleyball, but I just mean a lot of the support for the paying athletes comes from a labor law type argument that these kids are working jobs, essentially. If that's the argument then everyone will have a legit claim to get paid.

But as I said, I really have zero problem with them not being paid so I don't have a dog in the fight regarding which system is implemented.

Ahhh, I see what you're saying. That's a really good point and definitely would complicate things. It really is such a rabbit hole and layered with complexities.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

That contradicts your series of posts claiming it wouldn't make as big a difference as I've been claiming but whatever...

I agreed that was the issue and stated multiple times I am a proponent of paying the players.

My argument is that your approach wouldn't work and is short sighted. As the divide grows and you start to see drops in attendance at schools home games because their teams aren't good anymore, dips in ratings because those fan bases lose interest, the NCAA tournament isn't as popular because the gap is so wide there aren't any upsets on Day 1 and 2 that people tune in for so TV deals aren't as big - the money generated dries up or stunts in growth. That hurts the sport as whole which trickles down to hurting the players and their maximum potential to be compensated.

IT WOULD BE THE APOCALYPSE!!!

You've painted a nice doomsday scenario, but that's not even close to how things would actually go.

 

[Ward]

IT WOULD BE THE APOCALYPSE!!!

You've painted a nice doomsday scenario, but that's not even close to how things would actually go.

So you went from repeating a weak argument, then when proven to be illogical you switched the argument and were called out on it, now you're not even making arguments anymore just posting with no point.

It's pretty common and known that when a team sees their success dip the casual fans in their fan base see their interest drop. When you slash a significant chunk of the college basketball fan base across various regions there are going to be economic impacts. Not really that difficult of a thing to project...

 

[OttoMets]

It's not that I don't think they'll flex their muscles. It's that I don't care.

The real issue is that student-athletes are prohibited from benefiting from their identity, while institutions are free to disproportionately cash in on them. That's the issue.

I don't agree with the premise that players should be paid, but this problem -- trending worse each season -- is making my position more difficult to defend (emotionally, if not logically).

Kids who want to play college basketball and reap all the rewards that come with that, super, I'm not too sympathetic if the NCAA is raking in billions of dollars in selling broadcast rights. When the kids are forced to do non-basketball activities (those BS Final Four music commercials, for instance), have their likeness used to tout games (X Syracuse player taking on Y Duke player in the Big Monday matchup), and the merchandise becomes more individually representative, I'm very uncomfortable with the situation.

Again, college basketball has made things difficult on itself by not checking its greediest instincts. If this were marketed as a team game, player media time were strictly limited, and kids weren't being moved around like revenue-generating chess pieces, the schools and leagues would still bring in 75% of the money they do now, and the bulk of the fans currently upset about the situation wouldn't be complaining.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

So you went from repeating a weak argument, then when proven to be illogical you switched the argument and were called out on it, now you're not even making arguments anymore just posting with no point.

It's pretty common and known that when a team sees their success dip the casual fans in their fan base see their interest drop. When you slash a significant chunk of the college basketball fan base across various regions there are going to be economic impacts. Not really that difficult of a thing to project...

OK, you've won this one. I'm outclassed and outgunned. I know my place.

Someday I'll learn that hypotheticals are the evidence that prove my stances to be illogical.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I don't agree with the premise that players should be paid

I know you get this, but I'm not advocating for payment to players. I'm suggesting that the restriction on them making money from their identity should be removed. That's a big difference.

I agree with the rest of your post.

 

[Briancuse]

OK, you've won this one. I'm outclassed and outgunned. I know my place.

Someday I'll learn that hypotheticals are the evidence that prove my stances to be illogical.

On paper your idea isn't terrible, its just a logistical nightmare, that would ruin college sports.