JB's Presser after Carleton

[SWC75]

Oh, I appreciate your sentiment. You’re saying there must be some way to regulate this. I’m not a lawyer, but I have had enough Business Law training to know that there’s a very important red line that is crossed once you stop prohibiting something completely and the start trying to regulate it.

Especially in the realm of contracts. Imagine if the NCAA started to regulate how much and how coaches are compensated or whether or not they can have Camps or if they can serve as “consultants” to sneaker companies.

The States that are passing these laws have no idea what the issues or impacts are going to be. These politicians have said so. Like you, they are hoping someone figures it out.

Is it easier to ban than to regulate?

 

[longtimefan]

The "broad generalization" of the Sowell quote? Oh, please. Is this where you search for something that sounded good but also actually worked?

Things don't have to be true in every case to be generally true. The "War on Poverty" springs to mind. How did that work out?

How about "separate but equal"? That "worked" for a lot of people for a half century.

My point is that something may work fine for some, maybe even most, of the citizens. But minorities (not talking race or ethnicity, just numerical minorities) have rights and needs too. Where would we be if the civil rights legislation of the '60's, or the ADA of the 90's,? not been passed?

 

[Townie72]

Is it easier to ban than to regulate?

Yup!

Once you introduce something into the game, you now have to monitor it and control it. Who’s going to do that? What are the rules?

Even I, a rank amateur, can see dozens of ways in which this can be gamed to mask all kinds of things that put boosters on the driver’s seat and the NCAA and the colleges powerless to stop it.

 

[rrlbees]

gamed to mask all kinds of things that put boosters in the driver’s seat and the NCAA and the colleges powerless to stop it.

exactly this. But a players likeness....

 

[IthacaMatt]

"The scholarhips should be taxable then!" is the quintessential boomer take.

Didn't the Republicans just do that in the new tax law?

 

[Cusefan0307]

Is it easier to ban than to regulate?

It's not. Certain people only want bans to make it harder for less fortunate people to succeed in life. What a clown show.

 

[SWC75]

Yup!

Once you introduce something into the game, you now have to monitor it and control it. Who’s going to do that? What are the rules?

Even I, a rank amateur, can see dozens of ways in which this can be gamed to mask all kinds of things that put boosters on the driver’s seat and the NCAA and the colleges powerless to stop it.

That's what the NCAA is for. The quesition is: is this going to destroy it?

 

[Alsacs]

I would rather see players make money than all the Bureaucrats who work for the NCAA and make a lot of money off a TV contract that is generated by the players.

The NCAA is a plantation.
As it currently constructed and it does whatever the college presidents tell them to do to protect the status quo.

If the NCAA didn’t generate billions off the TV contract it would force the schools to pay dues and it would manage the sport like an ombudsman.

Instead the NCAA is bloated in Indianapolis with 500 people making money off athletes who get scholarship.
The NCAA has no problem making sponsorship deals with private companies. They should let their supposed student athletes do the same.

 

[Townie72]

How about "separate but equal"? That "worked" for a lot of people for a half century.

My point is that something may work fine for some, maybe even most, of the citizens. But minorities (not talking race or ethnicity, just numerical minorities) have rights and needs too. Where would we be if the civil rights legislation of the '60's, or the ADA of the 90's,? not been passed?

No offense. But is it possible from your perch in the stratosphere to discern the outlines of the continents?

The numerical minority, you seem to be so concerned about are about to get their rights.

Now we are going to see how this actually plays out.

As to your question "Where would we be if the civil rights legislation of the '60's?"

Where are we exactly?

BTW, some (not me) might find your comparison of kids on scholarships at universities who get meal money and cost of attendance money, who live in beautiful apartments, who are celebrities on campus, and who have an outside chance of making big money playing basketball afterward to the intended beneficiaries of Civil Rights laws not only strained but also offensive.

 

[Townie72]

I would rather see players make money than all the Bureaucrats who work for the NCAA and make a lot of money off a TV contract that is generated by the players.

The NCAA is a plantation.
As it currently constructed and it does whatever the college presidents tell them to do to protect the status quo.

If the NCAA didn’t generate billions off the TV contract it would force the schools to pay dues and it would manage the sport like an ombudsman.

Instead the NCAA is bloated in Indianapolis with 500 people making money off athletes who get scholarship.
The NCAA has no problem making sponsorship deals with private companies. They should let their supposed student athletes do the same.

You are clearly confused.

A plantation is a large farm. Prior to the Civil War, plantations in the northern and southern states used slave labor that was involuntary.

The NCAA is organization that oversees college athletics at the direction of the college presidents. Student-athletes are there on a voluntary basis.

Almost all the money NCAA collects goes back to the universities and not the NCAA.

The rhetoric around this is crazy.

 

[Cusefan0307]

You are clearly confused.

A plantation is a large farm. Prior to the Civil War, plantations in the northern and southern states used slave labor that was involuntary.

The NCAA is organization that oversees college athletics at the direction of the college presidents. Student-athletes are there on a voluntary basis.

Almost all the money NCAA collects goes back to the universities and not the NCAA.

The rhetoric around this is crazy.

Typical corporate speak when an institution is against anything that will hurt their bottom line.

 

[Townie72]

That's what the NCAA is for. The quesition is: is this going to destroy it?

Of course this won't destroy the NCAA. But you can't put an infinite number of straws on a camel's back.

How would you say the NCAA is today at policing violations, making the case against them and punishing offenders? You think they are catching all of them?

Now, as we appear to be doing, lets open up a whole new can of worms. How do you think they'll do policing the nuances?

Let's say a booster who owns a car dealership goes to the coach and say's "How can I help?"

The coach says, "Well my stars are already well taken care of. But some of the fringe players are unhappy at the disparity."

So the car dealer says. "So if I paid a bench player to appear in a commercial, that would be a good way to get this kid some money and keep him happy?"

Who is going to argue whether this is a good decision by the car dealer to put a fringe player in an ad and pay him $10K? (No one knows how to measure the effectiveness of ads, especially at this low level.

Dos the NCAA try to determine the legitimacy of the business expense?

Not only does the car dealer funnel money to the program. He also gets to write it off as a business expence on his taxes.

 

[Alsacs]

You are clearly confused.

A plantation is a large farm. Prior to the Civil War, plantations in the northern and southern states used slave labor that was involuntary.

The NCAA is organization that oversees college athletics at the direction of the college presidents. Student-athletes are there on a voluntary basis.

Almost all the money NCAA collects goes back to the universities and not the NCAA.

The rhetoric around this is crazy.

Mark Emmert makes 3.4 million dollars a year.
For what reason?
Those 500 employees average salary is over 125k per year.
Why?

The NCAA is beyond dirty.

 

[Mareiniss]

I see rinky dink schools becoming major players here to. Lots of money to go around it won’t be just your blue bloods.

Can’t imagine though the schools with stupid money like oil and gas. Texas, Kentucky etc. billionaire boosters, the bags will just get bigger for inane stuff. Promote our natural gas wells here’s 200k.

Couldn’t there be a salary cap? But then won’t there also be a union and collective bargaining ?

If it becomes legal for a player / recruit / prospective transfer to take money from a booster for allowing his image to be used in advertising, why wouldn't he go where the money is biggest? Most of the top players aren't going to choose a college for academic reasons, since they think they'll only be there for 1-2 years anyway. And if it becomes legal, why wouldn't the fat cat boosters offer the money? I worry that the proposed relaxation of amateurism rules will just lead to bidding wars where schools whose boosters have the deepest pockets will skim off the best talent.

 

[Townie72]

Typical corporate speak when an institution is against anything that will hurt their bottom line.

How is it going to hurt the NCAA's bottom line? The money goes directly from whoever to the athlete? It's "new" money outside the current system. It won't effect any TV contract or attendance at the Final Four or anything.

And even if it did (It doesn't), the amount of money is PEANUTS!!!

If 50 NCAA payers get $50,000 each that a whopping total of $2,500,000. If 100 players get $50,000 that's $5,000,000.

You really think the NCAA and the colleges are concerned about $5 million dollars? It's "chump change" and hardly worth worrying about. And it's not coming out of their pockets.

Sometimes I get the impression that some of our contributors on this board have no business sense whatsoever. Do the freaking math, people!

 

[bnoro]

If it becomes legal for a player / recruit / prospective transfer to take money from a booster for allowing his image to be used in advertising, why wouldn't he go where the money is biggest? Most of the top players aren't going to choose a college for academic reasons, since they think they'll only be there for 1-2 years anyway. And if it becomes legal, why wouldn't the fat cat boosters offer the money? I worry that the proposed relaxation of amateurism rules will just lead to bidding wars where schools whose boosters have the deepest pockets will skim off the best talent.

I can't see boosters bankrolling teams to the tune of millions per year

 

[Cusefan0307]

How is it going to hurt the NCAA's bottom line? The money goes directly from whoever to the athlete? It's "new" money outside the current system. It won't effect any TV contract or attendance at the Final Four or anything.

And even if it did (It doesn't), the amount of money is PEANUTS!!!

If 50 NCAA payers get $50,000 each that a whopping total of $2,500,000. If 100 players get $50,000 that's $5,000,000.

You really think the NCAA and the colleges are concerned about $5 million dollars? It's "chump change" and hardly worth worrying about. And it's not coming out of their pockets.

Sometimes I get the impression that some of our contributors on this board have no business sense whatsoever. Do the freaking math, people!

You’re talking to the wrong guy here. I’ve spent my entire career outsourcing jobs for multinationals and cutting operational budgets. I’m quite aware how businesses work.

Schools are worried money that went to them will go straight to athletes. Instead of going to new locker rooms and new dormitories people will donate to Joe Girard.

Now let me ask why you’re against this?

 

[Townie72]

You’re talking to the wrong guy here. I’ve spent my entire career outsourcing jobs for multinationals and cutting operational budgets. I’m quite aware how businesses work.

Schools are worried money that went to them will go straight to athletes. Instead of going to new locker rooms and new dormitories people will donate to Joe Girard.

Now let me ask why you’re against this?

 

[rrlbees]

Mark Emmert makes 3.4 million dollars a year.
For what reason?
Those 500 employees average salary is over 125k per year.
Why?

The NCAA is beyond dirty.

just a reminder, most of the NCAA and all the committees are made up of college presidents, chancellor’s , AD’s etc.

 

[Townie72]

You: "You’re talking to the wrong guy here. I’ve spent my entire career outsourcing jobs for multinationals and cutting operational budgets. I’m quite aware how businesses work."

Me: So you realize that this money is a minor drop in the bucket and yet still claim it's a major driver on why the NCAA and the schools are against this? Why?

You: "Schools are worried money that went to them will go straight to athletes. Instead of going to new locker rooms and new dormitories people will donate to Joe Girard."

Me: That that will occur hasn't been demonstrated. And second, it's a drop in the bucket. $50,000 won't buy the doors on a new dormitory.

Why am I against it?

Instead of trying to control the commercialization of college athletics and booster money in it, this is going in the opposite direction. At a point in time, the camel's back will break.

Politicians are for it. It's an easy thing to be for because it's popular, especially among those don't think it through. (Which in the US is just about everyone)

This will increase the role of the NCAA and it size. It's also going to lead to great confusion and more conflict.

It's going to be a bonanza for lawyers as everyone that feels they aren't sharing equally goes after the huge pot of money. It'll be feeding frenzy.

 

[Cusefan0307]

You: "You’re talking to the wrong guy here. I’ve spent my entire career outsourcing jobs for multinationals and cutting operational budgets. I’m quite aware how businesses work."

Me: So you realize that this money is a minor drop in the bucket and yet still claim it's a major driver on why the NCAA and the schools are against this? Why?

You: "Schools are worried money that went to them will go straight to athletes. Instead of going to new locker rooms and new dormitories people will donate to Joe Girard."

Me: That that will occur hasn't been demonstrated. And second, it's a drop in the bucket. $50,000 won't buy the doors on a new dormitory.

Why am I against it?

Instead of trying to control the commercialization of college athletics and booster money in it, this is going in the opposite direction. At a point in time, the camel's back will break.

Politicians are for it. It's an easy thing to be for because it's popular, especially among those don't think it through. (Which in the US is just about everyone)

This will increase the role of the NCAA and it size. It's also going to lead to great confusion and more conflict.

It's going to be a bonanza for lawyers as everyone that feels they aren't sharing equally goes after the huge pot of money. It's be feeding frenzy.

They had no problem selling their products for TV contracts and Apparel deals. They are to blame for the commercialization. No going back now. This is not comparable to high school athletics anymore.

 

[Townie72]

just a reminder, most of the NCAA and all the committees are made up of college presidents, chancellor’s , AD’s etc.

I admire the attempt, bees as futile as it might be.

If someone sees the NCAA as an evil empire, responsible to no one, with an insatiable greed for more money and power, you have a huge educational task before you.

 

[Townie72]

They had no problem selling their products for TV contracts and Apparel deals. They are to blame for the commercialization. No going back now. This is not comparable to high school athletics anymore.

But it's very comparable too professional athletics.

Which you can't see as a problem?

In fact, allowing someone else to pay the players, is one step from the universities doing it.

And if the universities pay the players, then how is that different from the Boston Celtics paying their players?

If the US wants to go to a system like they have in England for soccer with tiers of teams, I'm fine with that. If we want to go to the US pro baseball model, I'm OK.

The Universities could own the franchises and operate them as businesses

 

[longtimefan]

No offense. But is it possible from your perch in the stratosphere to discern the outlines of the continents?

The numerical minority, you seem to be so concerned about are about to get their rights.

Now we are going to see how this actually plays out.

As to your question "Where would we be if the civil rights legislation of the '60's?"

Where are we exactly?

BTW, some (not me) might find your comparison of kids on scholarships at universities who get meal money and cost of attendance money, who live in beautiful apartments, who are celebrities on campus, and who have an outside chance of making big money playing basketball afterward to the intended beneficiaries of Civil Rights laws not only strained but also offensive.

Again--I'm not talking at all about the current situation of D-I scholarship athletes. Rather, the Sowell proposition of "choosing what sounds good over what we know works."

I tried re-reading this exchange, and I don't know how you could come to the conclusion that I'm trying to equate college athletes with the people who marched in Selma.

My position on paying for "image, likeness. . ." is--I don't know. I think the system now in place is deeply flawed and unfair. But, I don't know how to fix it.

Finally, your dismissal of strides made since and because of the Civil Rights Acts ("Where are we exactly?). I can tell you where we aren't--we aren't at separate drinking fountains, restrooms, and lunch counters. And, in 1964 Sowell and his predecessors said that what we had was working, or at least required no government intervention

 

[Cusefan0307]

But it's vey comparable too professional athletics.

Which you can't see as a problem?

Listen the US is terrible at going after white collar crime and the NCAA is no different here. You’re mad about this be mad at our institutions who selectively enforce rules and laws. If they aren’t going to do that we may as well make it legal.