NYS proposes bill to directly pay collegiate athletes

[Alsacs]

Why don't they cap football or basketball coaching salaries at $1,000,000 to fund non-revenue sports?

Why is it always the players to benefit others?

If I was writing the bill I would say players from sports that turn a profit would entitled to some of the profits.
The problem with this it would it would trigger Title IX lawsuits because not many if any female collegiate sports programs turn a profit.
I don't think the kids that participate in swimming, track and field, cross country, soccer, tennis should be compensated by their colleges because football and basketball bring in millions of dollars.

The football and basketball players are the ones that get treated like indentured servants.
The compromise is the CA Bill which allows these athletes to make money off their likeness and endorsements while maintaining their eligibility. The marketplace would dictate what player got what.

Another problem is by paying the athletes you are turning them into employees and union/collective bargaining would become part of collegiate athletes. We would see lockouts/strikes like in professional sports.

I believe these kids in revenue sports deserve more its just if you pay the football/basketball and don't pay the sports I listed above that is a violation of the 14th amendment equal protection clause. Schools could probably pay the athletes in those sports and still turn major profits but if you start paying ALL SCHOLARSHIP athletes those profits aren't sustainable.

Capping coaching salaries sounds good but the NCAA can't tell the schools how much their coaches can make. Syracuse and most private schools don't typically release their coaches salaries because they want the information secret.

The CA Bill is good for the players. The NY Bill would work if its just for sports that turn a profit or it would affect these nonrevenue sports.

 

[Cusefan0307]

i'm against paying college athletes more than full ride scholarships. i could get behind losing the draft.
players no longer stick out careers at one place. go free market NBA and leave college sports alone.

Communist cartel mentality.

 

[Hoo's That]

Why don't they cap football or basketball coaching salaries at $1,000,000 to fund non-revenue sports?

Why is it always the players to benefit others?

Because the boosters won't give as much to the athletic fund. Saban's salary from State of Alabama funds is like $100K as a faculty member of the University. The rest comes from the boosters. If there was that salary cap, does anyone think that their boosters will still contribute that $6M+ each year to the athletic department? IMO the heavy hitters would cut back to a level that ensures they get the same seating, parking, etc., privileges, and not give the same amount they give now.

 

[Hoo's That]

If I was writing the bill I would say players from sports that turn a profit would entitled to some of the profits.
The problem with this it would it would trigger Title IX lawsuits because not many if any female collegiate sports programs turn a profit.
I don't think the kids that participate in swimming, track and field, cross country, soccer, tennis should be compensated by their colleges because football and basketball bring in millions of dollars.

The football and basketball players are the ones that get treated like indentured servants.
The compromise is the CA Bill which allows these athletes to make money off their likeness and endorsements while maintaining their eligibility. The marketplace would dictate what player got what.

Another problem is by paying the athletes you are turning them into employees and union/collective bargaining would become part of collegiate athletes. We would see lockouts/strikes like in professional sports.

I believe these kids in revenue sports deserve more its just if you pay the football/basketball and don't pay the sports I listed above that is a violation of the 14th amendment equal protection clause. Schools could probably pay the athletes in those sports and still turn major profits but if you start paying ALL SCHOLARSHIP athletes those profits aren't sustainable.

Capping coaching salaries sounds good but the NCAA can't tell the schools how much their coaches can make. Syracuse and most private schools don't typically release their coaches salaries because they want the information secret.

The CA Bill is good for the players. The NY Bill would work if its just for sports that turn a profit or it would affect these nonrevenue sports.

I seriously doubt any school will pay their athletes directly beyond the stipend they currently receive on general principles. I don't know what's in the NY bill, but the CA bill allows them to profit from endorsements, their likeness, etc., which would be paid by outsiders and not the school, because the school will not pay them for that, period. Even if the school was allowed to pay them directly under the law, I don't think any would because even the Blue Bloods of each sport apply the profits to the non-revs. Both of these laws are perfect set-ups for a civil war in the athletic department, especially if it is the schools that pay the athletes directly. Profit/no profit is bull-oney in the minds of college kids.

The Federal labor law applied in the Northwestern case only applies to private schools because it has a specific cut-out that exempts the states from its provisions. There's a different law that covers the non-Federal governments' relations with their employees.

Late edit: the profit/no profit provisions of the law won't survive a court challenge because it is an obvious attempt to skirt around Title IX. There have been numerous laws that seem neutral in their wording but were struck down because of their discriminatory effect. This would be one of them.

 

[Alsacs]

I seriously doubt any school will pay their athletes directly beyond the stipend they currently receive on general principles. I don't know what's in the NY bill, but the CA bill allows them to profit from endorsements, their likeness, etc., which would be paid by outsiders and not the school, because the school will not pay them for that, period. Even if the school was allowed to pay them directly under the law, I don't think any would because even the Blue Bloods of each sport apply the profits to the non-revs. Both of these laws are perfect set-ups for a civil war in the athletic department, especially if it is the schools that pay the athletes directly. Profit/no profit is bull-oney in the minds of college kids.

The Federal labor law applied in the Northwestern case only applies to private schools because it has a specific cut-out that exempts the states from its provisions. There's a different law that covers the non-Federal governments' relations with their employees.

The NY Bill calls for 15% of all athletic profits be given to all student athletes.

That would kill nonrevenue sports. They would get immediately. Schools would have probably FB, BB and WBB for Title IX. They wouldn't pay the athletes from sports that lose money they cut those programs.

 

[Hoo's That]

The NY Bill calls for 15% of all athletic profits be given to all student athletes.

That would kill nonrevenue sports. They would get immediately. Schools would have probably FB, BB and WBB for Title IX. They wouldn't pay the athletes from sports that lose money they cut those programs.

Well then, you've just lost a serious part of your most desired demographic. Schools have added lacrosse in order to get affluent applicants who don't need much/any financial aid. You can add tennis, golf, soccer, and cross country to that list. You can now kiss all of those folks goodbye because they'll go to D3.

It also will be difficult, at best, to get female legislators to support this bill because of its potential effects on women's sports, which, I'm sure, the schools will make quite plain to them.

 

[RandygoCuse]

For the most part the only athletes good enough to be marketable are going to go pro. Us college sports message board diehards are the minority. And they tend to graduate or leave for the pros within months of becoming famous. The exceptions are few and far between and would be a superstar like Dungey who didn’t have an NFL skill set despite being an all time great.

Making money off endorsements etc is just something that’s gonna happen at programs like Kentucky which they will use in recruiting to widen the gap. Is Billy Fucillo gonna give dozens of SU athletes their own commercials saying ITS GONNA BE HUGE!?!?! Probably not.

Now something like directly giving athletes a piece of the TV money and not letting the schools see it (deferred to graduation) makes sense to me.

This might be true but it might not...Companies may be able to market players successfully if they can do it above board. And I'd love to see what local markets (albeit for less money) I think it's at least worth testing.

 

[IthacaMatt]

What Tebow doesn’t mention in his ‘rah-rah, it’s all about the team’ sermon is that the universities and the media are making BILLIONS off of the athletes, and the vast majority will never have a chance to make any money at all off of their athletic endeavors. If nothing else, the kids that can, should be able to have financial control over their images and should be allowed to endorse products and make money off that.

You don’t want to straight up pay them? I’m sort of ok with that given that the scholarships they are given can be valued up to almost $300K depending on what school they are at.

Boeheim made the point the other day in an interview that we are already paying the athletes. They get a stipend, they get meal money, they have discretionary funds. They're not too broke to go home at Thanksgiving anymore. It's a few thousand dollars a year.

 

[RandygoCuse]

I don't know if letting players profit off their likeness will lead to less parity, but if it does, I'm perfectly OK with that. They deserve to be compensated and somehow I think college athletics will survive. And if by some chance it doesn't, I'm more concerned the athletes get what they deserve.

 

[Cusefan0307]

There’s already athletes getting six and sometimes 7 figures to play at certain schools. Some fans just choose to put their head in the sand about it.

 

[73CAV]

Of course, the NCAA could step in and say such payments are impermissible benefits.

 

[Cusesky8214]

 

[Todoubled23]

And so it begins.

 

[longislandcuse]

The future.
Progressive States will authorize college athletes to earn money.
The disparity between have and have-nots will increase, and as a result
NCAA revenue will decline.
To save college athletics there will be a complete overhaul. Power 5 conference individual teams will align with NBA teams. NBA teams will determine the composition of college teams. They will draft the college players. Teams that come in last will get first pick. Players will not have a choice where they attend college unless they go to an unaffiliated school. This will restore parity. Attendance will increase. NBA teams will pay the college players a small salary. Rules will be created to determine what percentage of the roster have to be students. The rest will be older players such as G Leagues. They will add a measure of stability to college teams. New rules will determine when a Power 5 college player can be brought up to the big leagues, etc. The existing NBA G League will affiliate with non-power 5 schools.
Is this rant an LSD flashback from my student days of yore?

Not just progressive states. South Carolina is looking to do the same thing as New York.

You think SEC states are going to let one second go by where they are behind the 8 ball of competitive advantage?... no way.

 

[IthacaMatt]

Of course, the NCAA could step in and say such payments are impermissible benefits.

If the NCAA declares ineligible all the colleges of California, as they have threatened, they may not realize it, but that will be the end of the NCAA.

 

[RoysRunts]

In the LONG RUN who Pays? Free College,Free Health care , Free... yep THE FAN.

 

[RandygoCuse]

In the LONG RUN who Pays? Free College,Free Health care , Free... yep THE FAN.

Does this hold true for endorsements as well? If a player helps Nike sell more sneakers, they may not have to raise the price. Though they probably will anyways if demand goes up. In which case a fan can decide if it's worth it to buy Nikes.

 

[shantydaze]

There has been a lot of talk about endorsements, but monetizing one's name, image, and likeness can be down in other ways. If I was a rich alumni, I would just pay the starting quarterback and point guard a $100,000 appearance fee to attend my kid's birthday party every year. I would also let potential recruits know that if they picked my favorite school, they would also be paid to attend the birthday party.

 

[UnknownOrange]

It's amazing how much administrators make at colleges. They are getting paid more than what brain surgeons make just so they money goes SOMEWHERE other than to the players. Money is used in so many places it doesn't actually need to and universities can just say "Arms race!!" "We need the best admins!!"

College sports is very gross. They don't want you to know how gross.

 

[dan7800]

I work at a reasonably large private university, and if people want the university to pay they need to consider a few things:

1. Where does the money come from?
   1. Less money for coaches/recruiting (won't happen)
   2. Less going to the university for research
   3. Less going for student financial aid (which at this point is almost entirely going to poor/minority students - at least at our school). For us, we've drastically raised tuition in the last several years. The increase goes directly towards helping poor/underrepresented students... Essentially an extra $5-$10k/yr tax on families who can afford to pay.
2. How to pay women and men sports equally? (most smaller schools ie Niagara, St. Bonnie etc can never afford this.

 

[RandygoCuse]

There has been a lot of talk about endorsements, but monetizing one's name, image, and likeness can be down in other ways. If I was a rich alumni, I would just pay the starting quarterback and point guard a $100,000 appearance fee to attend my kid's birthday party every year. I would also let potential recruits know that if they picked my favorite school, they would also be paid to attend the birthday party.

If an alumni wants to spend their money doing this, I'm cool with it. It certainly wouldn't affect tuition or take money away from the school.

 

[Orange87]

There has been a lot of talk about endorsements, but monetizing one's name, image, and likeness can be down in other ways. If I was a rich alumni, I would just pay the starting quarterback and point guard a $100,000 appearance fee to attend my kid's birthday party every year. I would also let potential recruits know that if they picked my favorite school, they would also be paid to attend the birthday party.

This is a good point. How does one stop those schools with deep-pocketed alumni from doing something like this and gaining unfair advantage over other schools that do not have like resources?

I would think that there may be a cap placed on the amounts that athletes could receive in these situations or some other such regulations or limitations.

Also I just don't understand why the value of the scholarships never seems to be taken into account. These range anywhere from $100K to over $250K depending on which school these athletes attend. I realize that in some cases the ROI for the universities is much greater, but still, that kind of value should be taken into account.

 

[Ghost]

This is a good point. How does one stop those schools with deep-pocketed alumni from doing something like this and gaining unfair advantage over other schools that do not have like resources?

I would think that there may be a cap placed on the amounts that athletes could receive in these situations or some other such regulations or limitations.

Also I just don't understand why the value of the scholarships never seems to be taken into account. These range anywhere from $100K to over $250K depending on which school these athletes attend. I realize that in some cases the ROI for the universities is much greater, but still, that kind of value should be taken into account.

Because the kids aren't really student athletes. Just athletes.

...all of about 10 kids could actually profit off of their name each year in a meaningful way. Finally, the OB's of the world can profit off their name in college!

Although without the name on the front of the jersey his name would be rather worthless.
The system is silly - soon we finally reach the optimum solution - everyone can benefit, well, except the fans and students who don't have lots of money to waste on enjoying college sports.

Perfect outcome achieved!

 

[RandygoCuse]

This is a good point. How does one stop those schools with deep-pocketed alumni from doing something like this and gaining unfair advantage over other schools that do not have like resources?

I would think that there may be a cap placed on the amounts that athletes could receive in these situations or some other such regulations or limitations.

Also I just don't understand why the value of the scholarships never seems to be taken into account. These range anywhere from $100K to over $250K depending on which school these athletes attend. I realize that in some cases the ROI for the universities is much greater, but still, that kind of value should be taken into account.

A free college education is absolutely a benefit. Now a student getting a $250K education for free doesn't actually cost the school $250K, but I'll admit that there is an argument to be made that schools are already well compensating student athletes.
However, if shoe and video game companies can profit off of the players' likenesses, the players should be able to as well. This wouldn't cost the school any extra money nor would they have to make cuts to support it.

As for the "problem" that alumni could pay players to sign with their schools...so what? It doesn't cost me, the fans, or the school anything. If someone wants to spend their money this way, who am I to say they can't.

I think the effect on parity is overblown. First of all, not all the top athletes are going to want to go to the same school and compete for minutes if the ultimate goal is to go to the NBA/NFL. Second, the best high school guys don't always pan out at the next level, whether it's due to chemistry/coaching issues or just plain inaccurate exceptions. Finally, in environments with single elimination tournaments and playoffs, having superior talent is often not enough. We just saw this play out with FIBA.

Now I could be wrong about parity. However, if I had to choose between parity (which doesn't really exist anyway) and fairness to the athletes, I choose the latter.

 

[IthacaMatt]

A free college education is absolutely a benefit. Now a student getting a $250K education for free doesn't actually cost the school $250K, but I'll admit that there is an argument to be made that schools are already well compensating student athletes.
However, if shoe and video game companies can profit off of the players' likenesses, the players should be able to as well. This wouldn't cost the school any extra money nor would they have to make cuts to support it.

I think, in light of the lack of jobs out there, that a "$250K education" isn't worth nearly that much. The real value of a college education, if you ask me, is about $40,000. College is insanely overpriced these days, and the bubble is going to burst.

This is another place where limiting immigration hurts us as a country. Fewer foreign students are going to come to our country, and pay top dollar (full retail price) for their degree. Walk the SU campus and note how many Asian and Middle Eastern students there are. These numbers are about to take a sharp decline if Trump has his way.