NCAA threatens to boot the whole state of California if bill becomes law

[Alsacs]

With many states following suit, this will be the end to college athletics as we know it. While this will please many posters we have here, I, for one, am not looking forward to the future. Is the current system perfect? Of course not. Is it better than what is coming? Not in the short run, IMO.

We are approaching a Wild West phase. Until it gets worked out (over time), there will be abuses that can't even be imagined right now that will make the current unlevel playing field look like a shiny flat table top.

The current system became unsustainable when conferences started their own TV networks and schools were spending insane dollars on facilities over just throwing money at the players.
The NCAA and Congress need to find a way to exempt revenue from non-revenue sports. If they can then revenue sports could have some compensation while allowing schools to keep non revenue sports.

This bill though protects the individuals who are why schools make a lot of money.

 

[Townie72]

Well all the ncaa committees including rules and policies and investigations etc are made up of members from the schools. The ncaa is the schools.

That’s one of the problems in discussing this. Many seem to believe the NCAA is this free-standing, responsible-to-no-one” entity. And they don’t like the NCAA because of some past ruling that went against their teams or they just don’t like large entities of any type (e.g, evil corporations)

They do not clearly understand that the NCAA is the agent of the University Presidents. They are one and the same.

The University presidents are torn on big time college athletics. They love the money, but the realize it corrupts many of the values they believe are at the core of the institution. They realize that a significant number of these kids are athletes and not students to any appreciable degree.

We all know that. But we don’t usually mind.

Now Congress is involved (again).

At a point, some of them are going to start saying, “Enough is enough”. The money just isn’t enough to justify the prostitution of our principles any further.

 

[Janner]

Since were already heading down a number of rabbit holes in this thread, I have one more that I would like to get some thoughts on. IF this bill, and other similar bills across the country, come to fruition over the next few years how will that affect conference expansion?

* I apologize for all the heads that may have exploded by blending the conference expansion and paying players threads

 

[NKR1978]

At a point, some of them are going to start saying, “Enough is enough”. The money just isn’t enough to justify the prostitution of our principles any further.

They will never say that. Ever. Because if that goes away so do their seven figure salaries and entertaining in the president's suite at football games. The donors and legislators of State U will never allow it.
The idea or notion that they care is a farce. The B1G brags about making more money than God and then scoffs at the idea of paying players while Jim Delaney makes $5.5m/year in salary off the backs of college athletes. Mark Emmert makes $3.9m/year. Coaches get paid $2+m a year. AD's get paid around $1m or more. They aren't giving that up.

It would be so freaking disgusting if the athletes getting a more equal piece of the pie is what broke the system. If they're so greedy that students being allowed to profit off their hard work and talent is enough to destroy the system, then the system should be destroyed.

 

[Townie72]

sorry but that’s not communism. In reality it’s more like capitalism. Players have a choice not to enter into agreement with the schools/ncaa. The schools/ncaa created a system that they benefit from the workers, the workers themselves have the choice to not enter into that agreement. The schools/ncaa would argue without them existing the players have no market value. That is the value the schools/ncaa add to the equation, among other things such as the ability through working together to create financially beneficial tv contracts. Which those contracts allow the schools to continue to fund the programs the players are benefiting from.

now what you’re arguing about is whether the players are getting a fair stake/equity in this arrangement or not. Karl Marx would probably agree with you that they aren’t. However the capitalist would argue the whole system ceases to exist without the schools/ncaa.

so it’s not really like communism except it’s an easy expression to throw out there. But you could argue it’s more like a free market system with the winner of the system being the schools/ncaa. And if you agree the government should correct this system, wouldn’t that actually be more like communism then a free market system?

Nice try, qdawgg.

Explaining the principles of Communism to someone that may not grasp them isn't easy. But I think 0307 is thinking about the behavior of the Governments that tried to implement Communism through control of every aspect of life and not the economic system itself.

 

[TheCusian]

The thing that is the unknown is that currently there are bagmen and hundred dollar hand shakes and $1k food that costs $1, etc. Long held traditions of funneling cash to players in direct opposition to the NCAAs rules at many, many schools. How much, exactly? And how much is the table already unlevel?

That’s for starters. Then you have to ask - what’s the market based equilibrium? That is how much is a players likeness and name worth to a business straight up as a business proposition? And then how many crazy rich people who may or may not be bagmen type will pump x amount of dollars into players season after season? There’s a line somewhere, where it’s just throwing money away.

One more thing. I think some are discounting the secretive nature of how it currently works. A local rich guy can funnel some personal money from his play stash easily. Public funneling of $ with contracts will draw attention. It’s easy and fun to give away secret money. Business deals out in the open are subject to all kinds of pressures.



I don’t think it’s going to be the end of college athletics. I do think it’s better than schools paying players (which would be destructive to other sports)

 

[Alsacs]

They will never say that. Ever. Because if that goes away so do their seven figure salaries and entertaining in the president's suite at football games. The donors and legislators of State U will never allow it.
The idea or notion that they care is a farce. The B1G brags about making more money than God and then scoffs at the idea of paying players while Jim Delaney makes $5.5m/year in salary off the backs of college athletes. Mark Emmert makes $3.9m/year. Coaches get paid $2+m a year. AD's get paid around $1m or more. They aren't giving that up.

It would be so freaking disgusting if the athletes getting a more equal piece of the pie is what broke the system. If they're so greedy that students being allowed to profit off their hard work and talent is enough to destroy the system, then the system should be destroyed.

The idea a Big Ten or any P5 school will say enough is enough is so archaic. Sports help the universities draw students. College tuitions are already overpriced as it is.
Athletic TV revenue is guaranteeing these P5 schools a starting point of 30-50 million dollars annually.
Jim Delaney is getting a 20 million dollar golden parachute from the Big Ten.

People protect the status quo think college sports are amateur athletics. They aren't for football and basketball.

 

[Townie72]

They will never say that. Ever. Because if that goes away so do their seven figure salaries and entertaining in the president's suite at football games. The donors and legislators of State U will never allow it.
The idea or notion that they care is a farce. The B1G brags about making more money than God and then scoffs at the idea of paying players while Jim Delaney makes $5.5m/year in salary off the backs of college athletes. Mark Emmert makes $3.9m/year. Coaches get paid $2+m a year. AD's get paid around $1m or more. They aren't giving that up.

It would be so freaking disgusting if the athletes getting a more equal piece of the pie is what broke the system. If they're so greedy that students being allowed to profit off their hard work and talent is enough to destroy the system, then the system should be destroyed.

They don't care about the money. If you believe that it's about money, you'll never understand the dynamics of this. There's plenty for everyone. More than they ever imagined.

It's about how to manage the system and to prevent it from spiraling out of control. Its about how to keep the schools at the top from gaining even more advantage. They have been struggling for year to have as much parity as they can (e.g., reducing the number of scholarship players so that Alabama can't stockpile every player in the Southeast)

Then there is what happens on campus, in the locker rooms and in their lives when kids are given big piles of cash. (Len Bias, anyone?)

It'll be a feeding frenzy for the "so-called" Advisors, family members and members of their "posses".

 

[Alsacs]

They don't care about the money. If you believe that it's about money, you'll never understand the dynamics of this. There's plenty for everyone. More than they ever imagined.

It's about how to manage the system and to prevent it from spiraling out of control. Its about how to keep the schools at the top from gaining even more advantage. They have been struggling for year to have as much parity as they can (e.g., reducing the number of scholarship players so that Alabama can't stockpile every player in the Southeast)

Then there is what happens on campus, in the locker rooms and in their lives when kids are given big piles of cash. (Len Bias, anyone?)

It'll be a feeding frenzy for the "so-called" Advisors, family members and members of their "posses".

Managing it from spiraling out of control?
The schools at the top already have gigantic advantage.
The rest of this is just dogwhistle NCAA bullchit. Kent Syverud can be trusted with big piles of cash but Tommy DeVito or Elijah Highes can't get a couple thousand bucks so EA Sports can sell an NCAA football/basketball video game.

 

[Townie72]

Since were already heading down a number of rabbit holes in this thread, I have one more that I would like to get some thoughts on. IF this bill, and other similar bills across the country, come to fruition over the next few years how will that affect conference expansion?

* I apologize for all the heads that may have exploded by blending the conference expansion and paying players threads

relegate eeryine
The major networks, advertisers and most of the unaffiliated fan base would be happier with fewer teams. A college football conference with about the same number of teams as the NFL would be ideal.

This one change won't cause it to happen. But the direction is to have a super conference and relegate the great unwashed mass to the TV coverage the Ivy League gets now.

 

[TheCusian]

Then there is what happens on campus, in the locker rooms and in their lives when kids are given big piles of cash. (Len Bias, anyone?)

It'll be a feeding frenzy for the "so-called" Advisors, family members and members of their "posses".

<Narrator voice> It already has </>

 

[FloridaFan]

What’s wrong with giving student athletes a 1000 dollar a month stipend? Instead of pretty much allowing bagmen to own the sport publicly

 

[Alsacs]

What’s wrong with giving student athletes a 1000 dollar a month stipend? Instead of pretty much allowing bagmen to own the sport publicly

There is nothing wrong with it per se. The problem is Title IX. Paying football and basketball players that amount of money wouldn't be an issue.
You can't as a nonprofit institution which all colleges are violate the equal protection clause and pay male football and basketball players but not pay male soccer players, female field hockey players, male and female tennis players, and track field athletes.

Schools turn massive profits from football and basketball teams that subsidize the other programs which don't turn profits. If you give one sport a stipend and not the other sports that violates the law. What would happen is schools would cut nonrevenue athletics and keep the minimum that keep them in compliance with Title IX.

Plus eventually the stipend would lead to unions forming and athletes from these sports getting a stipend demand a collective bargaining agreement and more of the pie.

The stipend idea works in theory but it kills college athletics more.

I mean the issue right now is college football and men's college basketball. These athletes are getting a chance to make some money off their likeness and schools don't have to pay them still.

 

[Townie72]

Managing it from spiraling out of control?
The schools at the top already have gigantic advantage.
The rest of this is just dogwhistle NCAA bullchit. Kent Syverud can be trusted with big piles of cash but Tommy DeVito or Elijah Highes can't get a couple thousand bucks so EA Sports can sell an NCAA football/basketball video game.

So it's already out of control, in your opinion, so what's a few more logs on the bonfire?

Or, the current system is out of control, so let's loosen it and see what happens.

A $200,000+ scholarship and "full cost of attendance" spending money isn't enough?

Beleive it or not, the NCAA (The College Presidents) are trying to keep this thing as even as they can. You, apparently, have little sympathy for this effort.

 

[NKR1978]

Since were already heading down a number of rabbit holes in this thread, I have one more that I would like to get some thoughts on. IF this bill, and other similar bills across the country, come to fruition over the next few years how will that affect conference expansion?

* I apologize for all the heads that may have exploded by blending the conference expansion and paying players threads

I don't think it will. Don't think anything will change other than students getting to cash in on their prime celebrity years.

Some of the "problems" that have been brought up, such as chemistry issues, could help to even out the haves versus have nots.

They don't care about the money. If you believe that it's about money, you'll never understand the dynamics of this. There's plenty for everyone. More than they ever imagined.

It's about how to manage the system and to prevent it from spiraling out of control. Its about how to keep the schools at the top from gaining even more advantage. They have been struggling for year to have as much parity as they can (e.g., reducing the number of scholarship players so that Alabama can't stockpile every player in the Southeast)

Then there is what happens on campus, in the locker rooms and in their lives when kids are given big piles of cash. (Len Bias, anyone?)

It'll be a feeding frenzy for the "so-called" Advisors, family members and members of their "posses".

If they don't care about the money, then when do they pay themselves so much.

Who cares if it's a feeding frenzy? Why do you care if a bunch of wealthy men want to feel important by spending money on an athlete? They already do, now it will be above board.

Paternalistic nonsense that we can't trust kids to handle money. And if they can't handle it, that's on them. How long ago was Len Bias? 33 years ago? Its Thursday night, an aggressive amount of cocaine will be snorted by students all across the country that mommy and daddy unwittingly paid for. If the Chainsmokers hit it big when they were at Syracuse and stayed in school then they would have been 20 with untold millions of dollars. No one would care about that, but athletes of a certain background can't be trusted. Interesting.

They don't care about parity. They just want to keep the money with the plantation owners. Not with the men and women in the field. If they cared about parity conference realignment never would have happened. College conference networks would never have happened.

I don't often agree with you, but I've never thought you were naive. The thought that they don't care about the money is beyond naive, I'm not sure there's a word for it.

 

[Alsacs]

So it's already out of control, in your opinion, so what's a few more logs on the bonfire?

Or, the current system is out of control, so let's loosen it and see what happens.

A $200,000+ scholarship and "full cost of attendance" spending money isn't enough?

Beleive it or not, the NCAA (The College Presidents) are trying to keep this thing as even as they can. You, apparently, have little sympathy for this effort.

Then they should cap how much a coach can make?
Why isn't their a coaching salary cap?
Then a coach wouldn't leave for another school strictly for the cash.
The current system is an endorsement of old plantations.
The NCAA is full of bureaucrats who make 6/7 dollar incomes to keep the system like it is now.
They don't give a crap about the kids that make revenue.

Why do colleges sell jerseys? Why do colleges put athletes on tickets? They make $$$$$. This is all about keeping power with the money.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

There is nothing wrong with it per se. The problem is Title IX. Paying football and basketball players that amount of money wouldn't be an issue.
You can't as a nonprofit institution which all colleges are violate the equal protection clause and pay male football and basketball players but not pay male soccer players, female field hockey players, male and female tennis players, and track field athletes.

Schools turn massive profits from football and basketball teams that subsidize the other programs which don't turn profits. If you give one sport a stipend and not the other sports that violates the law. What would happen is schools would cut nonrevenue athletics and keep the minimum that keep them in compliance with Title IX.

Plus eventually the stipend would lead to unions forming and athletes from these sports getting a stipend demand a collective bargaining agreement and more of the pie.

The stipend idea works in theory but it kills college athletics more.

I mean the issue right now is college football and men's college basketball. These athletes are getting a chance to make some money off their likeness and schools don't have to pay them still.

Why can’t we just make football players employees? That solves the majority of the issues. It also allows an evening out of the number of men’s and women’s sports.

I don’t think BBall is the money maker you are making it out to be.

 

[NKR1978]

Then they should cap how much a coach can make?
Why isn't their a coaching salary cap?
Then a coach wouldn't leave for another school strictly for the cash.
The current system is an endorsement of old plantations.
The NCAA is full of bureaucrats who make 6/7 dollar incomes to keep the system like it is now.
They don't give a crap about the kids that make revenue.

Why do colleges sell jerseys? Why do colleges put athletes on tickets? They make $$$$$. This is all about keeping power with the money.

I know throwing Jamele Hill into the mix may not be the smartest thing, but she makes some great points. The athletes, many of them black, are finally asserting themselves. Some people have a problem with that. Though it's across the ideological spectrum. I've seen liberals use the same types of arguments against it as conservatives.


Edit: Not only is it ONLY about money, the whole notion of "student-athlete" was invented out of thin air to deny athletes workers' compensation benefits for injuries. "Amateurism" as far as the NCAA is concerned is to keep money with the schools and conferences and the NCAA. It's a freaking joke. The SEC is the first conference to signal it is ok with the California law; my guess is the Big 12 and ACC will follow. The B1G and its little Pac 12 brother will be the biggest hypocrites.

 

[Newhouser]

Boosters will pay kids to just go to the school and ink deals with them before they ever step foot on campus. And yes before they ever know how good they are.

You are thinking too much of after they step on campus. The before they step on campus is the much bigger issue and where paying kids will be a failure.

Also, if they are allowed to get paid in college...what rules are there to stop them from getting paid through high school by corporations directing kids to go to certain schools that have deals with certain colleges?

Yep, nothing.

just curious - how much more rampant will the pre-campus arrival payment be than it is now?

 

[Alsacs]

Why can’t we just make football players employees? That solves the majority of the issues. It also allows an evening out of the number of men’s and women’s sports.

I don’t think BBall is the money maker you are making it out to be.

NCAA extends tournament deal with CBS, Turner through 2032 for $8.8 billion

The broadcast partners will provide coverage of all games on any platforms they choose.

www.usatoday.com

Basketball is where the NCAAT makes 85% of its revenue.
They have 8.8 BILLION coming in through 2032 in just TV revenue. That doesn't include ticket sales, sponsorships.

The NCAA makes way more from basketball than it does football. Football is controlled by the conferences/schools.

Also if they make the players into employees how do they do a CBA when players only have to be in college 3 years, the union would have insane turnover. It would require integrating the NFL and NFLPA.
Good luck with that.

 

[Townie72]

NKR1978 - The "Plantation owners"?

Seriously? The "Plantation owners"?

How can anything you write be taken seriously when you refer to the college presidents as "plantation owners"?

In the grand scheme of things this amount of money is a drop in the bucket. But, I'm naive or beyond naive for recognizing that?

 

[Newhouser]

They don't care about the money. If you believe that it's about money, you'll never understand the dynamics of this. There's plenty for everyone. More than they ever imagined.

It's about how to manage the system and to prevent it from spiraling out of control. Its about how to keep the schools at the top from gaining even more advantage. They have been struggling for year to have as much parity as they can (e.g., reducing the number of scholarship players so that Alabama can't stockpile every player in the Southeast)

Then there is what happens on campus, in the locker rooms and in their lives when kids are given big piles of cash. (Len Bias, anyone?)

It'll be a feeding frenzy for the "so-called" Advisors, family members and members of their "posses".

Everyone cares about money, if you don't believe that, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Alsacs]

NKR1978 - The "Plantation owners"?

Seriously? The "Plantation owners"?

How can anything you write be taken seriously when you refer to the college presidents as "plantation owners"?

In the grand scheme of things this amount of money is a drop in the bucket. But, I'm naive or beyond naive for recognizing that?

You have never watched Southpark I take it.

Stu-dent ATH-O-LEETS - South Park | South Park Studios US

Cartman visits the University of Colorado to get business advice.

southpark.cc.com

 

[hoopsupstate]

There is nothing wrong with it per se. The problem is Title IX. Paying football and basketball players that amount of money wouldn't be an issue.
You can't as a nonprofit institution which all colleges are violate the equal protection clause and pay male football and basketball players but not pay male soccer players, female field hockey players, male and female tennis players, and track field athletes.

Schools turn massive profits from football and basketball teams that subsidize the other programs which don't turn profits. If you give one sport a stipend and not the other sports that violates the law. What would happen is schools would cut nonrevenue athletics and keep the minimum that keep them in compliance with Title IX.

Plus eventually the stipend would lead to unions forming and athletes from these sports getting a stipend demand a collective bargaining agreement and more of the pie.

The stipend idea works in theory but it kills college athletics more.

I mean the issue right now is college football and men's college basketball. These athletes are getting a chance to make some money off their likeness and schools don't have to pay them still.

JB says Buddy gets a $1300 a month stipend now. That’s nearly &15,000 a year on top of their scholarship. That’s not too bad. What will stop a booster from giving a player $20,000 for his autograph to get him to choose a certain school?

 

[upperdeck]

so if in 5 yrs 90% of the colleges just stop having sports programs, the net to the colleges is probably a net savings and the loss is really that thousands of kids will no longer go to college..

we had a system that allowed jobs and such for atheletes and it created a huge imbalance in fair play.. this system doesnt allow a few kids to make money but it creates a system for the 99% to go to school.