Perhaps unpopular however... BURN IT ALL DOWN

[Cheriehoop]

It's not just sneaker companies, it's agents - professional or not, who act on behalf of not college athletes but right down to early high school that make the college basketball scene the way it is. Most of these 'relationships' start well before star players ever gets to college. How does anything colleges enact, get rid of the people like relatives, AAU coaches, invested friends, pro agents etc from trying to make money off kids and kids trying to make money off them? The corruption comes well before college age.

 

[maxxyz]

Some ideas...just for shits and giggles.

- End the 1 year college hoops requirement. make it 2 years minimum, or none at all.
- All power conference schools get 12 single year salaries to disperse to players in addition to their academic scholarships. These range from $25K for true freshman to $50K for seniors. All non power conf schools get 12 $10,000 salaries that dont change based on year.
- NBA and NCAA jointly come together and, as part of the admissions package, have players sign a binding agreement that if they are EVER found, whether in real time, or many years later, to have taken dirty money of any kind, they receive a lifetime ban from the two leagues/organizations.

Not to be a stick in the mud, but;
-The one year requirement is an NBA imposed rule, not the NCAA.
-Every college athlete would need to receive similar compensation under Title IX rules. Not sure that's gonna happen.
-Why would any top recruit sign an agreement like that?

I feel that if the NBA would remove there one year requirement, alot of the payoffs would go away.

 

[Cheriehoop]

I feel that if the NBA would remove there one year requirement, alot of the payoffs would go away.

Not trying to be snarky but why would that happen? It wouldn't involve colleges anymore for straight to the NBA players but the agents, shoe companies - why would they stop wanting to influence a player to sign with them? What stops players from receiving money in high school?

Then for players who need more experience and opt for college hoping the NBA would give them top $ in a year or two, what would stop any of it?

 

[FasterCuse]

Not trying to be snarky but why would that happen? It wouldn't involve colleges anymore for straight to the NBA players but the agents, shoe companies - why would they stop wanting to influence a player to sign with them? What stops players from receiving money in high school?

Then for players who need more experience and opt for college hoping the NBA would give them top $ in a year or two, what would stop any of it?

It wouldn't matter because they would be going straight to a for profit NBA team. This is an issue because these universities receive federal funds, and due to a bunch of legal jargon we don't need to get into here, offering a college bound student money to go to your university is not in the university's best interest.

 

[Eric15]

- NBA and NCAA jointly come together and, as part of the admissions package, have players sign a binding agreement that if they are EVER found, whether in real time, or many years later, to have taken dirty money of any kind, they receive a lifetime ban from the two leagues/organizations.

If you're Adam Silver and your job is for the NBA to make money, would you really want to run the risk of having to lose some big-time league star if it's discovered he took a few bucks in college a decade ago? Why would he and the league owners ever in a million years agree to that? The NBA more than any other sport relies on it's highly visible individual stars for ratings and marketing.

 

[RandygoCuse]

Not to be a stick in the mud, but;
-The one year requirement is an NBA imposed rule, not the NCAA.
-Every college athlete would need to receive similar compensation under Title IX rules. Not sure that's gonna happen.
-Why would any top recruit sign an agreement like that?

I feel that if the NBA would remove there one year requirement, alot of the payoffs would go away.

This. I've never been a big fan of "none or two." I think a lot of people are under the impression that only the players that are ready will make the jump. It will cause more players to go as they don't want to wait an extra year to get paid, when they will be a year older and give everyone more time to notice their flaws. Also, I don't think players being paid is the problem (although if current rules have been broken, there should be appropriate punishment). I think Football and Men's Basketball have to form a separate division where players are paid, can do endorsements, and everyone determines how academics will fit in. Yes, it would most likely include the Power 5 schools and for basketball it may include some other conferences as well. I wouldn't open it up to everyone. There has to be a committee to determine which schools will play in the conference. Yes, politics may play a role, but I think this is a better solution than having schools that can't afford it try to keep up with the Jones's.

 

[maxxyz]

Not trying to be snarky but why would that happen? It wouldn't involve colleges anymore for straight to the NBA players but the agents, shoe companies - why would they stop wanting to influence a player to sign with them? What stops players from receiving money in high school?

Then for players who need more experience and opt for college hoping the NBA would give them top $ in a year or two, what would stop any of it?

Ha - you're absolutely right. I was looking at it with the myopic view that disengaging it from college sports was the end goal. Certainly wouldn't stop it on the professional level.

As to the those looking for college playing experience - I feel that there is so much less money to be made on these players by the apparel companies & agents that it takes it out of the equation. Still subject to booster influence though.

 

[Cheriehoop]

As to the those looking for college playing experience - I feel that there is so much less money to be made on these players by the apparel companies & agents that it takes it out of the equation. Still subject to booster influence though.

I think there's still plenty of money to be made from shoe companies to showcase their players at colleges that wear their shoes (Why shoe companies pay colleges to wear their stuff) and steer them to one of their schools. The thing people seem to ignore is that these relationships between shoe companies, agent influences etc starts well before college. AAU, club, prep school teams are sponsored, outfitted by them. When these kids hit it big in college or the NBA, these influences all want to get their early investments to pay off financially for them.

 

[SBU72]

Some ideas...just for shits and giggles.

- End the 1 year college hoops requirement. make it 2 years minimum, or none at all.
- All power conference schools get 12 single year salaries to disperse to players in addition to their academic scholarships. These range from $25K for true freshman to $50K for seniors. All non power conf schools get 12 $10,000 salaries that dont change based on year.
- NBA and NCAA jointly come together and, as part of the admissions package, have players sign a binding agreement that if they are EVER found, whether in real time, or many years later, to have taken dirty money of any kind, they receive a lifetime ban from the two leagues/organizations.

- as pointed out, 1 year is a NBA rule, nothing to do with colleges.
- besidess title 9 laws, isn't allowing P5 schools to pay more a little like the bribes being paid now? The rich gets richer! What chance would a mid-major school have in getting any top 100 recruit.
- why would the NBA do anything together with the NCAA? Plus they would also have to get aggreement from the players union who have shown little interest in modifing current rules.

 

[Quazzum69]

There isn't anything wrong with companies/agents paying players. As long as the tax stuff is legal, why shouldn't a 18 or 13 year old be able to get paid for an endorsement or to play on a specific team? There are no restrictions for adolescent entertainers or athletes in other sports and countries. Academy players in Europe get paid.

It all goes back to the utter stupidity of having universities -- and all the rules and regulations they must abide by -- owning clubs worth millions. If it was a separate business, all of the problems would be avoided.

 

[FreakTalksAboutSU]

Not to be a stick in the mud, but;

-Why would any top recruit sign an agreement like that?
.

They don't have to. They can go to Europe for a couple years. But if they want to play college ball and then go NBA, thats what they have to do. Again, just spitballing

 

[FreakTalksAboutSU]

If you're Adam Silver and your job is for the NBA to make money, would you really want to run the risk of having to lose some big-time league star if it's discovered he took a few bucks in college a decade ago? Why would he and the league owners ever in a million years agree to that? The NBA more than any other sport relies on it's highly visible individual stars for ratings and marketing.

Yeah I dont know. Like I said, I was just spitballing there. Im not sure the incentive exists for the NBA at all, but something like that would really be the only way this could ever work.

 

[Hoo's That]

How does a program like UNC Asheville pay their players. Albany? Boise State? Are these basketball programs even profitable? Does the 12th man get the same about as the leading scorer? How much do they get paid? Are they getting the same amount as the Kentucky or Kansas players or other programs that are highly profitable?

How will the players get drafted? Without a draft, there will be no competition.

 

[Hoo's That]

Now that's a good point. NCAA makes a billion dollars on the add revenue for the NCAA Tournament.

The NCAA Tournament is an enormous cash cow as revenue keeps skyrocketing

... and that money pays for the other championships in D's 1, 2, and 3, Mr. Thompson the Elder.

 

[jncuse]

In my view those involved in the NCAA really only have 2 choices now:
1) Keep the system and essentially cease back door payments in order to avoid or out of fear of criminal prosecution.
2) Finally come up with a way to compensate players in the open.

With social pressures and competitive pressures, to me I think it will certainly lead to #2. The system as it is can no longer exist. It's idiotic to have a system with back door compensation that could lead to criminal records and jail time, for coaches, assistants, directors and players.

 

[jncuse]

There isn't anything wrong with companies/agents paying players. As long as the tax stuff is legal, why shouldn't a 18 or 13 year old be able to get paid for an endorsement or to play on a specific team? There are no restrictions for adolescent entertainers or athletes in other sports and countries. Academy players in Europe get paid.

It all goes back to the utter stupidity of having universities -- and all the rules and regulations they must abide by -- owning clubs worth millions. If it was a separate business, all of the problems would be avoided.

Absolutely. If college players were compensated, were allowed to meet with agents none of this would have happened. It's the system that created the conspiracy and bribes.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

Absolutely. If college players were compensated, were allowed to meet with agents none of this would have happened. It's the system that created the conspiracy and bribes.

I believe players are allowed to meet with agents but cannot take anything.

 

[reedny]

Absolutely. If college players were compensated, were allowed to meet with agents none of this would have happened. It's the system that created the conspiracy and bribes.

Sure, if this stuff wasn't against the rules or illegal, it would be aokay. But that's not the system. It's amateur athletics. Even NBA players have trouble adjusting to professional life and managing their money (and their conduct) responsibly. Now you want vultures hanging out next to school busses? At 16/17, kids are way too young. They're totally vulnerable -- to agents, shysters, handlers .. even greedy parents. Let them finish HS for god sake. When they graduate, they can either enter the draft or spend 2-3 years in college. If they enter the draft, by all means ... agents, payments, endorsements ... whatever. It's fair game. If they choose college, they should remain amateurs and "payments" should be limited to tuition, room, board, books and a reasonable stipend for expenses (basically the current system). If you don't think an education and all the valuable benefits derived therefrom, including career skills and the talent showcase known as the NCAA, are worth it, I can't help you. Stick to pro sports. Pretending all Universities should follow the hideous, pseudo-educational "example" set by UK -- G-League -- is ridiculous. This 4 months in fake-classes crap is nonsense.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

... and that money pays for the other championships in D's 1, 2, and 3, Mr. Thompson the Elder.

But that doesn’t cost a billion dollars, does it?

 

[Hoo's That]

But that doesn’t cost a billion dollars, does it?

I forgot the money they also pay to the D-1 basketball conferences for participation. This is a very cynical article which can't dispute the fact that only 10% of the money stays in India-noplace to run NCAA HQ and the rest of the money goes to the colleges at all levels. The author's point is "pay the players" and he doesn't want to hear otherwise.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

I forgot the money they also pay to the D-1 basketball conferences for participation. This is a very cynical article which can't dispute the fact that only 10% of the money stays in India-noplace to run NCAA HQ and the rest of the money goes to the colleges at all levels. The author's point is "pay the players" and he doesn't want to hear otherwise.

I read on the NCAA website they only keep 4% and distribute the rest back to the programs. If the players are going to be paid, how much are they getting and who is paying them? How can small schools compete? Most small school are not making money on their hoops program. Unless the NCAA money covers it.

 

[texascpa]

The NCAA made $996M in 2016. Let's round that up to $1B. There were 176,000 Division I athletes in 2016. Assuming the NCAA had $0 in expenses and could distribute their total revenue to the athletes, that comes to $5,681 per athlete annually. All athletes would have to be paid something, even if their sport is losing money. That's Title IX coming into play. So, if you didn't divvy it up evenly, it would be interesting how it was divvied up.

Now, as for expenses, the NCAA distributes about half of their revenues to the universities, so you would have to go to the university level to see how much could be distributed by each school - many of which already lose money annually (see Rutgers).

 

[Quazzum69]

Sure, if this stuff wasn't against the rules or illegal, it would be aokay. But that's not the system. It's amateur athletics. Even NBA players have trouble adjusting to professional life and managing their money (and their conduct) responsibly. Now you want vultures hanging out next to school busses? At 16/17, kids are way too young. They're totally vulnerable -- to agents, shysters, handlers .. even greedy parents. Let them finish HS for god sake. When they graduate, they can either enter the draft or spend 2-3 years in college. If they enter the draft, by all means ... agents, payments, endorsements ... whatever. It's fair game. If they choose college, they should remain amateurs and "payments" should be limited to tuition, room, board, books and a reasonable stipend for expenses (basically the current system). If you don't think an education and all the valuable benefits derived therefrom, including career skills and the talent showcase known as the NCAA, are worth it, I can't help you. Stick to pro sports. Pretending all Universities should follow the hideous, pseudo-educational "example" set by UK -- G-League -- is ridiculous. This 4 months in fake-classes crap is nonsense.

You could say the same thing about child actors, musicians, app developers, etc. No one expected Miley Cyrus to not get paid because she was younger than 18 and possibly naive. The 'amateur' label is an arbitrary rule so the universities, ncaa, and pro leagues don't have to pay them except with tuition which doesnt really have much economic cost compared to cash payments.

Imagine if the entertainment or other industries had to operate through universities. It would be a nightmare and make no sense. It is a legacy system that no one wants to update.

 

[reedny]

You could say the same thing about child actors, musicians, app developers, etc. No one expected Miley Cyrus to not get paid because she was younger than 18 and possibly naive. The 'amateur' label is an arbitrary rule so the universities, ncaa, and pro leagues don't have to pay them except with tuition which doesnt really have much economic cost compared to cash payments.

Imagine if the entertainment or other industries had to operate through universities. It would be a nightmare and make no sense. It is a legacy system that no one wants to update.

Yes there are a few child actors (money probably put in trust), and a few kids performing in bands and circuses. Is that your model for interscholastic athletics? If so, you're going back to 1918, before compulsory education. These days, school comes first and the last thing they need (if you support an educated society) is agents and handlers breathing down their necks. After HS, I agree that participation in professional or amateur intercollegiate athletics should be a choice. The point I'm making is .. if college is the choice it shouldn't be a sham. Exceptions like UK shouldn't drive the rule. The vast majority of kids derive substantial benefits from being interscholastic and intercollegiate amateurs. They should have that choice .. except for a (very) few who might be taken in the draft out of HS.

 

[FreakTalksAboutSU]

The NCAA made $996M in 2016. Let's round that up to $1B. There were 176,000 Division I athletes in 2016. Assuming the NCAA had $0 in expenses and could distribute their total revenue to the athletes, that comes to $5,681 per athlete annually. All athletes would have to be paid something, even if their sport is losing money. That's Title IX coming into play. So, if you didn't divvy it up evenly, it would be interesting how it was divvied up.

Now, as for expenses, the NCAA distributes about half of their revenues to the universities, so you would have to go to the university level to see how much could be distributed by each school - many of which already lose money annually (see Rutgers).

If they cannot figure out a way to base payments on sport revenues, or some other logic-driven metric, then the jig is up on college sports. The problem will not be solved by paying the 5 star blue chipper the same thing as the field hockey benchwarmer.

Im not saying you are wrong re: the issues related to Title IX...just that if they cannot figure out a way to work with, through, or around that, then the whole idea of paying athletes is a non-starter in that it wont solve anything.