i've completely flipped on the paying players thing

[EastCoast2]

You didn't like my idea of making profit sharing based on revenue collected? Say Syracuse University got one million dollars from the NCAA tournament based on how they played. Then come up with some formula where the money gets split between the University and players, and each player gets a percentage of the pool based on the number of minutes they played in the game. Anytime you have a fixed salary for all players it's going to be a mess. I don't think this is that hard. Think it like the way real estate agents get paid. All the real estate agents at the office do not get paid equally. Pay is based on performance and a percentage of revenue created.

I think some formula can be created, but minutes played is a bad idea. Say a coach gets mad at a player, and sits them (JB sitting Kaleb). At what point does it turn from "you're not performing on the court" to "I'm making this personal and making sure you don't get paid". You'd open up the door to lawsuits - 18 year old kids suing their college coaches for now playing them and not allowing them to make money. If Syracuse wins by 40 points and the starters don't play the entire second half, should they get half the money for that game? Bigs generally play less minutes, should they get less money? If a team only has one guard due to injuries/suspensions and plays 39 minutes, but is terrible, should he get the maximum amount of money?

 

[Dave85]

Is NJ in a competition to become the state that most closely represents the butthole of America that nobody else knows about?

Okay, I live here. I get it, it sucks. I mean really bad. However, just 1 mile from my house is branch of the Raritan river. This year I decided to try to fish it. I thought it was the fish apocalypse because I never catch anything. The other day I caught 3 small-mouth bass out of the river. A few days later I caught a 2 pound carp. And yesterday I caught this:

A 2 pound rainbow trout just 1 mile from my house! Are you kidding me? I did not think it was possible. They stock this river but that's a 2 or 3 year old stocked fish. It was huge! There's a good current there an it put up a terrific fight.

So NJ may be a butthole, but it's a butthole with a nicely stocked trout!

 

[HarrisonJBounel]

just to play devil's advocate, what exactly is the point of non-revenue sports again? if a sport doesn't pay for itself, who gives a damn?

Because everyone deserves a trophy, doncha know.

 

[AZOrange]

Then the top 15-20 schools with the largest athletics donor bases (which does not include SU) should just break away and form their own league, because when Phil Knight starts offering astronomical "endorsement deals" to top recruits that are 200 times the athlete's actual fair market value, other schools won't be able to compete.

But why would Phil Knight just start acting like a crazy person?

 

[HarrisonJBounel]

I think a fair and simple answer is to pay scholarship athletes a minimum wage for the hours they spend training, practicing, and competing. Same rate that you pay students to work in the library or dining halls.

 

[reedny]

I think a fair and simple answer is to pay scholarship athletes a minimum wage for the hours they spend training, practicing, and competing. Same rate that you pay students to work in the library or dining halls.

Employees aren't amateurs playing sports.

 

[Dave85]

I think some formula can be created, but minutes played is a bad idea. Say a coach gets mad at a player, and sits them (JB sitting Kaleb). At what point does it turn from "you're not performing on the court" to "I'm making this personal and making sure you don't get paid". You'd open up the door to lawsuits - 18 year old kids suing their college coaches for now playing them and not allowing them to make money. If Syracuse wins by 40 points and the starters don't play the entire second half, should they get half the money for that game? Bigs generally play less minutes, should they get less money? If a team only has one guard due to injuries/suspensions and plays 39 minutes, but is terrible, should he get the maximum amount of money?

Players can sue their coaches now. Nothing prevents you from suing someone.

Minutes is the only way. If you base it on just showing up then there is no incentive to play well or stay with CBB. There's certainly tons of reasons to leave. Our society is built on competition. We should have pride it that fact and reward those who play well. Everyone has an equal chance to play the full 40 minutes per game. Everyone has a chance to make it to the final four or final game.

As I said, base in on how much the NCAA receives from advertising. I guarantee NCAA makes sure it collects the money from the TV contracts. I guarantee you NCAA honors its contracts with each University or college making sure they get paid their share. All I am saying is expand the sharing to include the players. This is really not that hard. If the NCAA can pay 64 schools, they certain can take their billions and create a system for paying 500 players who play in the tournament. We have computers for stuff like this!

 

[AZOrange]

So what is your plan? If your not paying them? If they are profiting from their likeness, that is getting paid, and title nine comes into play.

It doesn't really. Coaches are already allowed to have disparate compensation in college sports.

 

[shandeezy7]

But why would Phil Knight just start acting like a crazy person?

He already acts like a crazy person with the amount of money he's poured into Oregon athletics. Isn't the whole point of donating all that money so that it raises the profile of Oregon athletics, making them able to attract top level talent? Cut out the middle man and let him just start paying the top level talent and I very easily see a similar scenario taking place.

 

[HarrisonJBounel]

Employees aren't amateurs playing sports.

Employees aren't given full scholarships that they agreed to accept.

 

[AZOrange]

He already acts like a crazy person with the amount of money he's poured into Oregon athletics. Isn't the whole point of donating all that money so that it raises the profile of Oregon athletics, making them able to attract top level talent? Cut out the middle man and let him just start paying the top level talent and I very easily see a similar scenario taking place.

Maybe. But you don't create billion dollar businesses paying people 200x what they're worth.

 

[reedny]

Employees aren't given full scholarships that they agreed to accept.

That's the point.

 

[Dave85]

He already acts like a crazy person with the amount of money he's poured into Oregon athletics. Isn't the whole point of donating all that money so that it raises the profile of Oregon athletics, making them able to attract top level talent? Cut out the middle man and let him just start paying the top level talent and I very easily see a similar scenario taking place.

This is America, a place of opportunity. Why shouldn't a player be able to get paid for speaking engagements like politicians. Why is everyone so pro-Soviet style government all the time? The NCAA gets so much money. Thought this was a very persuasive expose:

 

[Dave85]

Employees aren't given full scholarships that they agreed to accept.

Is Syracuse University tuition free to children of parents who work there?

 

[djcon57]

So just for the record:

- Schools pay the players: Can't do that...Schools can't afford all the teams. Athletic depts are already in the red (right), etc etc

- Let players make money off their likeness: Can't do that...cause it'd be unfair to smaller and/or private schools?

Boy, the schools and NCAA have it real rough.

OH...we just saw an issue confirmed with a player asking his coaches for money so his mom didn't have her lights turned off. A guy who could've easily made the 300 bucks signing autographs for an hour at some mall in Oxford.

But, yeah, I feel for those schools. We wouldn't want to make it unfair.

 

[EastCoast2]

Players can sue their coaches now. Nothing prevents you from suing someone.

Minutes is the only way. If you base it on just showing up then there is no incentive to play well or stay with CBB. There's certainly tons of reasons to leave. Our society is built on competition. We should have pride it that fact and reward those who play well. Everyone has an equal chance to play the full 40 minutes per game. Everyone has a chance to make it to the final four or final game.

As I said, base in on how much the NCAA receives from advertising. I guarantee NCAA makes sure it collects the money from the TV contracts. I guarantee you NCAA honors its contracts with each University or college making sure they get paid their share. All I am saying is expand the sharing to include the players. This is really not that hard. If the NCAA can pay 64 schools, they certain can take their billions and create a system for paying 500 players who play in the tournament. We have computers for stuff like this!

There are so many ridiculous statements in this post than I honestly don't know if you're trolling or if you actually believe paying players based on minutes played is a good idea.

Who's the last NCAAB player to sue his coach? How many lawsuits have there been the past 10 years? If you give a coach 100% power over a player's pay, there are going to be lawsuits everywhere. Mookie Jones would have 12 lawsuits going through the courts right now himself.

You're saying the only incentive for NCAAB players is money? Did Villanova not want to win the title this year because they aren't paid cash? Was London Perrantes crying because he didn't make an additional $5k? Ridiculous.

Also, you didn't address my previous questions:
1) Say a coach gets mad at a player, and sits them (JB sitting Kaleb). At what point does it turn from "you're not performing on the court" to "I'm making this personal and making sure you don't get paid". You'd open up the door to lawsuits - 18 year old kids suing their college coaches for now playing them and not allowing them to make money.
2) If Syracuse wins by 40 points and the starters don't play the entire second half, should they get half the money for that game?
3) Bigs generally play less minutes, should they get less money?
4) If a team only has one guard due to injuries/suspensions and plays 39 minutes, but is terrible, should he get the maximum amount of money?
5) A player gets injured and misses the rest of the season (McCullough, Devendorf), should they get zero salary for 50%, 75% of the season?
6) A player has to miss time for personal reasons (family death, illness), should they not get paid if they miss 2 or 3 games?

I think you'd see locker rooms turned into fight clubs with cocky freshman mad that the upperclassman is taking his "promised playing time (CASH)" away, or the other way around. Players recruited and promised a starting spot, 32 mpg, let's say that's about $60k/season. They don't perform well so now they play 8 mpg, and that's only $15k. So you're promised $60k and now make $15k. I'll let you tell me how many problems that would cause.

 

[Dave85]

There are so many ridiculous statement in this post than I honestly don't know if you're trolling or if you actually believe paying players based on minutes played is a good idea.

Who's the last NCAAB player to sue his coach? How many lawsuits have there been the past 10 years? If you give a coach 100% power over a player's pay, there are going to be lawsuits everywhere. Mookie Jones would have 12 lawsuits going through the courts right now himself.

You're saying the only incentive for NCAAB players is money? Did Villanova not want to win the title this year because they aren't paid cash? Was London Perrantes crying because he didn't make an additional $5k? Ridiculous.

Also, you didn't address my previous questions:
1) Say a coach gets mad at a player, and sits them (JB sitting Kaleb). At what point does it turn from "you're not performing on the court" to "I'm making this personal and making sure you don't get paid". You'd open up the door to lawsuits - 18 year old kids suing their college coaches for now playing them and not allowing them to make money.
2) If Syracuse wins by 40 points and the starters don't play the entire second half, should they get half the money for that game?
3) Bigs generally play less minutes, should they get less money?
4) If a team only has one guard due to injuries/suspensions and plays 39 minutes, but is terrible, should he get the maximum amount of money?
5) A player gets injured and misses the rest of the season (McCullough, Devendorf), should they get zero salary for 50%, 75% of the season?
6) A player has to miss time for personal reasons (family death, illness), should they not get paid if they miss 2 or 3 games?

I think you'd see locker rooms turned into fight clubs with cocky freshman mad that the upperclassman is taking his "promised playing time (CASH)" away, or the other way around. Players recruited and promised a starting spot, 32 mpg, let's say that's about $60k/season. They don't perform well so now they play 8 mpg, and that's only $15k. So you're promised $60k and now make $15k. I'll let you tell me how many problems that would cause.

I disagree. The players are not getting paid as employees. The players are sharing in revenue received from advertising just like the Universities. The minute you step on the court you are part of the spectacle which is bringing in the advertising. If that means scrubs play the whole second half too bad for the starters. It's not the point. It's who's showing on the screen is getting paid for their time. The NCAA could cut them a check as a profit sharing bonus.

All those other issues are irrelevant. Next you are going to say Monmouth should be compensated because they helped Notre Dame become a better team. If you going to go down the path of value judgments you will never agree on anything.

You make it sound like the NCAA sharing in the revenue of the tournament with the schools is "impossible" but it happens! Each school gets paid based on how many games they participate in playing.

 

[EastCoast2]

I disagree. The players are not getting paid as employees. The players are sharing in revenue received from advertising just like the Universities. The minute you step on the court you are part of the spectacle which is bringing in the advertising. If that means scrubs play the whole second half too bad for the starters. It's not the point. It's who's showing on the screen is getting paid for their time. The NCAA could cut them a check as a profit sharing bonus.

All those other issues are irrelevant. Next you are going to say Monmouth should be compensated because they helped Notre Dame become a better team. If you going to go down the path of value judgments you will never agree on anything.

You make it sound like the NCAA sharing in the revenue of the tournament with the schools is "impossible" but it happens!

Just out of curiosity, because it would help me see where you're coming from, what line of work are you in?

 

[shandeezy7]

Maybe. But you don't create billion dollar businesses paying people 200x what they're worth.

No but when you're worth billions, you can and will do whatever you want with your money, whether it's deemed a good investment or not. That's the point I'm making, in that the actual market value of endorsement deals for these athletes will mean nothing. People do crazy things for their schools, and some booster paying a top athlete way more that what they are worth, just so they'll choose to attend their beloved school, might be worth it in their minds.

 

[Dave85]

Just out of curiosity, because it would help me see where you're coming from, what line of work are you in?

Irrelevant.

 

[EastCoast2]

Irrelevant.

Actually is relevant, maybe you'd see some of the potential, and highly likely issues and risks involved with this proposed "pay by minutes played" structure in college athletics.

 

[AZOrange]

No but when you're worth billions, you can and will do whatever you want with your money, whether it's deemed a good investment or not. That's the point I'm making, in that the actual market value of endorsement deals for these athletes will mean nothing. People do crazy things for their schools, and some booster paying a top athlete way more that what they are worth, just so they'll choose to attend their beloved school, might be worth it in their minds.

That's why Ottos idea is a good one. Let the money come from the business itself. I just have a hard time believing Phil Knight will drop millions on 1 college kid especially when he was the guy that wasn't so sure on Steph Curry!

 

[shandeezy7]

That's why Ottos idea is a good one. Let the money come from the business itself. I just have a hard time believing Phil Knight will drop millions on 1 college kid especially when he was the guy that wasn't so sure on Steph Curry!

I suppose, except most of these guys are the businesses. They own them. I guess it'd be harder to do when there are shareholders to answer to, but a lot of them don't have that problem. And of course there'd be loopholes to that anyway, like a booster paying a local car dealership $100,000 to endorse some football player.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Maybe. But you don't create billion dollar businesses paying people 200x what they're worth.

Yeah, I'm anticipating a major diminishing return to become evident at a certain point.

 

[BlazeOrange]

Allowing players to get endorsements sounds like a no-brainer, until you realize that it would all be an impossible-to-regulate sham that would in no way be based in reality.

This would be true for a while, maybe a long while at some schools. It solves the problem that the people who are most responsible for generating massive revenues for their schools are not receiving proportional compensation by creating a new revenue stream. The schools income is not significantly affected at first (I may be wrong , but assume that media revenue and mandatory donations to secure tickets dwarfs voluntary donations - at least outside of facility construction efforts which might rely on naming rights-level donors).

However, all this money is floating around because lots of people are interested in seeing top level competitions involving either or both of this age group and/or schools they are somehow associated with. Connecting players with boosters/endorsers will definitely result in concentrations of higher-rated players at certain schools that have fans offering to pay more. If it results in a small group of ultra elite teams, there is potential that overall interest will wane if school-first fans find their alma mater on the outside. Meaning less viewers and butts in seats, which leads to lower direct revenue and media contracts for the universities and subsequently reduced endorsement opportunities for the players.

Recruits don't always pan out though. So, unless transfer rules are liberalized, there will be star players at non-factory schools who may benefit from national corporate endorsements (smart companies will also take care of their teammates to ensure ROI). Will this be enough to counter booster endorsements and maintain a broad level of competition? Who knows.

I think my point got away from me as I typed, but I do think I'm starting to lean toward the deregulate and lets see what happens side.