i've completely flipped on the paying players thing

[OttoinGrotto]

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

No.

 

[djcon57]

No.

FWIW, as you are obviously aware, you are basically debating with people who's major argument against the plan for players to use their own likeness is "I like Syracuse sports.".

 

[OttoinGrotto]

FWIW, as you are obviously aware, you are basically debating with people who's major argument against the plan for players to use their own likeness is "I like Syracuse sports.".

Yeah.

 

[maxxyz]

FWIW, as you are obviously aware, you are basically debating with people who's major argument against the plan for players to use their own likeness is "I like Syracuse sports.".

I don't think that's the point they're trying to make. It's how do you prevent a school with a wealthy fan base from using promotional agreements to pay athletes to go to a particular school?

I think the ideas are pretty well covered in previous posts...

 

[djcon57]

I don't think that's the point they're trying to make. It's how do you prevent a school with a wealthy fan base from using promotional agreements to pay athletes to go to a particular school?

I think the ideas are pretty well covered in previous posts...

It doesn't matter. It's not part of the discussion.

Honest question: How do we prevent Phil Knight from giving Oregon sports a bunch of money now to have the best uniforms, equipment, and facilities now? Or for one that hits close to home...how do we prevent Carmelo Anthony from giving money to a basketball facility. Is that fair to St Bonaventure or Drexel or insert whatever school here? IS IT?

It's not. But we don't care. But as soon the money actually going into the players pocket comes into play there's a big dilemma suddenly.

I don't buy it for a second.

 

[orangenirvana]

It doesn't matter. It's not part of the discussion.

Honest question: How do we prevent Phil Knight from giving Oregon sports a bunch of money now to have the best uniforms, equipment, and facilities now? Or for one that hits close to home...how do we prevent Carmelo Anthony from giving money to a basketball facility. Is that fair to St Bonaventure or Drexel or insert whatever school here? IS IT?

It's not. But we don't care. But as soon the money actually going into the players pocket comes into play there's a big dilemma suddenly.

I don't buy it for a second.

Exactly.

Players have never been paid (out in the open), and yet the powerhouse programs already get the best recruits. Why? Because of all of the benefits that exist at those schools as a result of having the most money.

But by paying the players, instead of wasting donations on needless facility upgrades and other toys, that money could actually be given to players whose families could actually use it for things that are more important than self-ventilating lockers with digital nameplates and LED lighting and televisions inside bathroom mirrors.

Paying the players (whether through the school or otherwise) wouldn't effect the parity of college football/basketball at all. Aside from the fact that it would keep players in college longer, which helps programs like Syracuse Basketball.

The doomsday arguments are silly.

 

[maxxyz]

Paying the players (whether through the school or otherwise) wouldn't effect the parity of college football/basketball at all. Aside from the fact that it would keep players in college longer, which helps programs like Syracuse Basketball. The doomsday arguments are silly.

A college like Villanova would never be able to compete in a system like you describe. And neither would SU. They don't have the donor base to pay the big money to players for their "endorsements". You would end up with a league of 20 schools like UCLA, OSU, Michigan, Alabama etc. and everyone else would be D3. If you don't call that an effect on parity than I don't know what else to say.

Why not push for the NBA to open up their draft to 18 year olds. And the developmental league as well. Then a player could get paid if they feel they are worth more compensation than a scholarship.

 

[SWC75]

Scholarships should include a cost-of-living stipend so players aren't cash-poor, (such as the Ohio state guys who had to barter trinkets to get tatoos). It should be standardized so ti won't be a recruiting advantage.

Allow endorsements but the money earned from them would go into a kitty shared by everyone on the team.

 

[Dave85]

Scholarships should include a cost-of-living stipend so players aren't cash-poor, (such as the Ohio state guys who had to barter trinkets to get tatoos). It should be standardized so ti won't be a recruiting advantage.

Allow endorsements but the money earned from them would go into a kitty shared by everyone on the team.

I love the stipend idea. At least match what students get in work-study programs. The way it is now is just ridiculously unfair. Make the stipend some percentage of some number so people can't complain it's not fair bla bla bla. I love percentages. They are the coolest thing in math! Percentages have the potential to make the World a better place.

 

[shandeezy7]

Scholarships should include a cost-of-living stipend so players aren't cash-poor, (such as the Ohio state guys who had to barter trinkets to get tatoos). It should be standardized so ti won't be a recruiting advantage.

Allow endorsements but the money earned from them would go into a kitty shared by everyone on the team.

While I more or less agree with the cost of living stipend, I don't think football players wanting tattoos is a good example for cost of living.

 

[Dave85]

While I more or less agree with the cost of living stipend, I don't think football players wanting tattoos is a good example for cost of living.

Ink work is important. What is life without culture? BB players need their body art-work. It's part of the game. "Family 4 Ever!"

 

[orangenirvana]

A college like Villanova would never be able to compete in a system like you describe. And neither would SU. They don't have the donor base to pay the big money to players for their "endorsements". You would end up with a league of 20 schools like UCLA, OSU, Michigan, Alabama etc. and everyone else would be D3. If you don't call that an effect on parity than I don't know what else to say.

Why wouldn't Syracuse and Villanova get the same recruits that they do today? SU basketball is one of the most profitable in the country, with some of the best facilities. Where does that money come from? Donors and a big fanbase. I call BS on your view.

Why not push for the NBA to open up their draft to 18 year olds. And the developmental league as well. Then a player could get paid if they feel they are worth more compensation than a scholarship.

Because people like college basketball, which is why it generates so much money. They don't like development leagues - which is why those games are empty and get no national coverage whatsoever.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

You know, there's a bigger picture here that people are missing - they're worried about college sports, but how about being worried about education?

See, there are all kinds of reasons why tuition costs continue rising. Unfortunately, it's hard to make the argument that it's rising because higher education keeps improving by so much. Availability of loans, distortions from the for-profit sector, the arms race among academic buildings and dorms, etc. are all factors. Given all of the money that pours in thanks to college sports you would think that would mitigate some of that rise, but it doesn't really. If schools start directly paying players the cost of education will increase - do you want the tuition your kid pays to be supporting that? Would they get enough value from the athletes to say it enhances their education?

You can avoid all of that crap by simply allowing the players to sign endorsements.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Ink work is important. What is life without culture? BB players need their body art-work. It's part of the game. "Family 4 Ever!"

When I hear someone complain about the lack of money and I see they have tattoos or multi-piercings, I just say to my self, you are too dumb to handle money, that is why you don't have any.

 

[billsin01]

Because people like college basketball, which is why it generates so much money. They don't like development leagues - which is why those games are empty and get no national coverage whatsoever.

I don't agree on this point. For one thing, a developmental league is fundamentally different than college hoops -- it's a franchise run team that works to develop prospects in exactly the way they want to develop them. One of the reasons high school baseball players get huge bonuses to get them out of college commitments is because the franchises don't want college coaches altering or messing with a player's developmental curve if at all possible. The same applies here -- if you like a kid like Malachi Richardson, then why have him playing a year or two of zone defense? Draft him and develop him in a league that perhaps no one is watching but you're controlling the development.

I'm not into paying players, but I can live with it if it happens. However, the I don't think there's a real argument against the NBA having it's own developmental system (I know the D League exists, but come on) and simply drafting anyone 18+ whom they feel is worth the investment. That would seem to make a lot of sense and potentially alleviate a little bit of the cluster -- that hoops has become in many ways (paying players, everyone declaring every year...)

 

[triplethrea]

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.

What makes you think the money is coming from outside the university?

 

[billsin01]

You know, there's a bigger picture here that people are missing - they're worried about college sports, but how about being worried about education?

See, there are all kinds of reasons why tuition costs continue rising. Unfortunately, it's hard to make the argument that it's rising because higher education keeps improving by so much. Availability of loans, distortions from the for-profit sector, the arms race among academic buildings and dorms, etc. are all factors. Given all of the money that pours in thanks to college sports you would think that would mitigate some of that rise, but it doesn't really. If schools start directly paying players the cost of education will increase - do you want the tuition your kid pays to be supporting that? Would they get enough value from the athletes to say it enhances their education?

You can avoid all of that crap by simply allowing the players to sign endorsements.

But isn't there already a solution to that? I mean, the part I don't understand is that there is absolutely nothing requiring these kids to play college hoops. Brandon Jennings not only went abroad but got to play in a pretty sick location (Rome) and made $3.2M ($1.2 guaranteed from the club, $2M from Under Armour to wear UA). Then he was still selected in the first round, averaged at least 15 ppg until this year and has made close to $26M in career earnings. Things have worked out pretty well. I wonder why more guys don't follow that route?

 

[orangenirvana]

I don't agree on this point. For one thing, a developmental league is fundamentally different than college hoops -- it's a franchise run team that works to develop prospects in exactly the way they want to develop them. One of the reasons high school baseball players get huge bonuses to get them out of college commitments is because the franchises don't want college coaches altering or messing with a player's developmental curve if at all possible. The same applies here -- if you like a kid like Malachi Richardson, then why have him playing a year or two of zone defense? Draft him and develop him in a league that perhaps no one is watching but you're controlling the development.

I'm not into paying players, but I can live with it if it happens. However, the I don't think there's a real argument against the NBA having it's own developmental system (I know the D League exists, but come on) and simply drafting anyone 18+ whom they feel is worth the investment. That would seem to make a lot of sense and potentially alleviate a little bit of the cluster -- that hoops has become in many ways (paying players, everyone declaring every year...)

I'm not against development leagues or farm systems. I do think it would hurt the college game simply because there would be less talent competing among the college programs. But regardless of that, the NBA should be able to do what it deems beneficial to itself as long as its workers are treated fairly.

I think you missed my point. People who don't want college players getting paid often point to development leagues as some sort of solution. But the presence of a minor league basketball system doesn't eliminate the fact that college football and basketball players are being exploited and remain uncompensated for their labor that results in the generation of billions of dollars.

 

[orangenirvana]

But isn't there already a solution to that? I mean, the part I don't understand is that there is absolutely nothing requiring these kids to play college hoops. Brandon Jennings not only went abroad but got to play in a pretty sick location (Rome) and made $3.2M ($1.2 guaranteed from the club, $2M from Under Armour to wear UA). Then he was still selected in the first round, averaged at least 15 ppg until this year and has made close to $26M in career earnings. Things have worked out pretty well. I wonder why more guys don't follow that route?

What about the players who don't have that option? The players who are good enough to help their teams and in turn the NCAA generate billions of dollars they'll never see, yet not quite good enough to play pro out of high school and maybe not even out of college. Do their hard work and sacrifices not matter?

 

[Ward]

Why wouldn't Syracuse and Villanova get the same recruits that they do today? SU basketball is one of the most profitable in the country, with some of the best facilities. Where does that money come from? Donors and a big fanbase. I call BS on your view.

Because people like college basketball, which is why it generates so much money. They don't like development leagues - which is why those games are empty and get no national coverage whatsoever.

Basketball facilities are great, but are primarily a result of an extraordinary gift from Melo. It isn't practical to view it as a product of a steady stream of donors that can be relied on to keep up in the arms race moving forward. Look at how much of a struggle it was to get the IPF in football and reality is it still isn't really in the same hemisphere as the Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan etc. and they are probably in the process right now of upgrading their facilities even further.

The Dome has prestige because of history and the big/loud crowds, do those loud crowds keep coming at the rate they do if the team isn't as good due to top players signing at other schools where they can get more money? The recruits are human and more often than not if I have one school saying we can give you ~15-25k while you're here and another saying we can give you $30-50k they'll take the offer with more money. Prestige of a program can swing both ways in the pendulum pretty quickly.

Syracuse has great fan support and alumni base, the issue comes with it just being a numbers game.

Also, as an fyi so my stance isn't misinterpreted, I have 0 problem paying players. My basis for argument isn't that I only support approaches that won't hurt SU, it's that this approach would really bust open the gap between the top handful and everyone else and I think would have negative downstream impact on the sport. SU is just a great test case to use that we can all speak informed on.

 

[Dave85]

When I hear someone complain about the lack of money and I see they have tattoos or multi-piercings, I just say to my self, you are too dumb to handle money, that is why you don't have any.

If you watch the John Oliver piece on this players were complaining about not having enough money to buy food. I think there comes a point where you have to trust the athletes. The main point being it's a huge amount of work to represent the college in sports and athletes should be paid for that in any form in my opinion. And they can do whatever they want with the money.

 

[shandeezy7]

What about the players who don't have that option? The players who are good enough to help their teams and in turn the NCAA generate billions of dollars they'll never see, yet not quite good enough to play pro out of high school and maybe not even out of college. Do their hard work and sacrifices not matter?

To play devil's advocate, no one is forcing them to play college sports. What about all of the students who help generate millions and millions of research dollars for their universities? They sacrifice a lot and don't see a dime of it.

 

[orangenirvana]

Basketball facilities are great, but are primarily a result of an extraordinary gift from Melo. It isn't practical to view it as a product of a steady stream of donors that can be relied on to keep up in the arms race moving forward. Look at how much of a struggle it was to get the IPF in football and reality is it still isn't really in the same hemisphere as the Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan etc. and they are probably in the process right now of upgrading there facilities even further.

The Dome has prestige because of history and the big/loud crowds, do those loud crowds keep coming at the rate they do if the team isn't as good due to top players signing at other schools where they can get more money? The recruits are human and more often than not if I have one school saying we can give you ~15-25k while you're here and another saying we can give you $30-50k they'll take the offer with more money. Prestige of a program can swing both ways in the pendulum pretty quickly.

Syracuse has great fan support and alumni base, the issue comes with it just being a numbers game.

Also, as an fyi so my stance isn't misinterpreted, I have 0 problem paying players. My basis for argument isn't that I only support approaches that won't hurt SU, it's that this approach would really bust open the gap between the top handful and everyone else and I think would have negative downstream impact on the sport. SU is just a great test case to use that we can all speak informed on.

I understand exactly what you're saying...I just disagree. Donors donate now regardless of the lack of player pay and endorsements. Would they donate more when it can go directly to the players? Maybe, maybe not. Even if they would donate more, would that effect recruiting? I just don't think so. At least not significantly like you're saying.

 

[orangenirvana]

To play devil's advocate, no one is forcing them to play college sports. What about all of the students who help generate millions and millions of research dollars for their universities? They sacrifice a lot and don't see a dime of it.

So because no one is forcing them to play, that means the NCAA should be allowed to exploit their labor without paying them a share of the billions they generate? Trust me, I used to say this until one day I realized how awful an argument it is.

We should be encouraging kids to play basketball and promoting the health of the sport. Not tricking them then telling them with shrugged shoulders "Hey, if ya don't like it, then don't play."

As for the research dollars argument - those students aren't restricted from having jobs or generating wealth independently.

 

[shandeezy7]

So because no one is forcing them to play, that means the NCAA should be allowed to exploit their labor without paying them a share of the billions they generate? Trust me, I used to say this until one day I realized how awful an argument it is.

We should be encouraging kids to play basketball and promoting the health of the sport. Not tricking them then telling them with shrugged shoulders "Hey, if ya don't like it, then don't play."

As for the research dollars argument - those students aren't restricted from having jobs or generating wealth independently.

I'm just saying that these athletes are already reimbursed far more your typical student who is also helping the college raise millions of dollars. The only argument that really makes sense in all of this is that the athletes are public figures, and therefore, they are marketable commodities who aren't able to benefit from that under the current construct of the NCAA.

But then again, the only reason they are marketable in the first place is because they have been given a platform to display their skills. A platform they would not have if they chose to go play pro ball somewhere besides the NBA. It's a complicated issue without an easy fix, and a lot of the solutions that have been put out here are full of holes.