The Way to Keep Good Players From Jumping to the NBA

[Capt. Tuttle]

lets get rid of college scholarship sports and go to club sports. Let the NBA and NFL have farm teams like baseball.

 

[Briancuse]

Sounds a lot like this:
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/09/11/s...agency-system-is-found-unfair-by-us-jury.html



Are you among the 100 best employees at your job in the world? Did your company make $45B in sales directly due to your position at the company? If so, I'd say you aren't getting your fair share.


A scholarship with room and board costs anywhere from $20k-50k depending on the university. If the players are worth more than that, and would be offered more than that in a free economy, then they deserve more than that. "People want to buy my painting for $1000!" "Too bad, they're not allowed. Here is a pretty frame instead. The frame is protects the painting and is priceless".

Title IX might be a legal and bureaucratic roadblock, but doesn't make the process any more right. If the women produce enough revenue for colleges to want to pay them, they should be allowed to. No reason to think that colleges wouldn't have paid for Brittany Griner.



It sounds like the market for your job was $28k and that's what you were paid. In the case of the NCAA, a market is not allowed. Your top DC law firm would have billed you out for $150/hour, gave you room and board and told you to be happy with that.

It doesn't matter what they produce, it is a law, you have to pay them the same.

 

[Todd Gack]

I don't understand why the NCAA can't copy the olympic model. The school only gives them a scholarship but they can make money off jersey sales, autographs, appear in commercials, shoes sales, and pretty much profit off of their like-ability. This is a win all for everyone because the school doesn't lose any money no title XI violations and the players still get to make money and it will go to the players that deserve it the most.

The problem with this: 1) There are Kentucky fans who'll pay $1M for an autograph. Which SU fan will do the same? 2) To prevent that, is the NCAA to get into regulating money? Wouldn't they be pressured to extend it to everyone? I think they would -- and if so, this further separates the "haves" from the "have nots." SU has a lot -- but would lose badly in an arms race.

 

[rrlbees]

Are you among the 100 best employees at your job in the world?

Yep.

And JB is one of the 100 best in the world too.

 

[rrlbees]

Sounds a lot like this: http://www.nytimes.com/1992/09/11/s...agency-system-is-found-unfair-by-us-jury.html

Doesn't sound anything like that. College players are allowed to go where they want. Another school, pro etc.

 

[rrlbees]

I don't understand why the NCAA can't copy the olympic model. The school only gives them a scholarship but they can make money off jersey sales, autographs, appear in commercials, shoes sales, and pretty much profit off of their like-ability. This is a win all for everyone because the school doesn't lose any money no title XI violations and the players still get to make money and it will go to the players that deserve it the most.

Because it would open a can if worms for illegal recruiting. Give me your autograph on this ball and I'll give you $100K.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I don't understand why the NCAA can't copy the olympic model. The school only gives them a scholarship but they can make money off jersey sales, autographs, appear in commercials, shoes sales, and pretty much profit off of their like-ability. This is a win all for everyone because the school doesn't lose any money no title XI violations and the players still get to make money and it will go to the players that deserve it the most.

I've been on board with this for a while now. It should be a fundamental right that a person can profit from their own identity.

Because it would open a can if worms for illegal recruiting. Give me your autograph on this ball and I'll give you $100K.

First off, it wouldn't be illegal. Second, so what if the kid gets 100k? Keep rosters the same size - Kentucky could pay out a billion dollars and there would still be tons of good players left over once they've set their rosters. If anything, I think you'd see more parity - small markets would have businesses that want player endorsements too.

 

[rrlbees]

I've been on board with this for a while now. It should be a fundamental right that a person can profit from their own identity. First off, it wouldn't be illegal. Second, so what if the kid gets 100k? Keep rosters the same size - Kentucky could pay out a billion dollars and there would still be tons of good players left over once they've set their rosters. If anything, I think you'd see more parity - small markets would have businesses that want player endorsements too.

It would legalize illegal recruiting.

 

[Todd Gack]

It should be a fundamental right that a person can profit from their own identity. /QUOTE]

It is. As is your right to not join a group (i.e., enter into a contract) with its own bylaws. We're all free to be Kobe.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

It would legalize illegal recruiting.

I don't see the problem. It legalizes it for everyone.

 

[triplethrea]

It would legalize illegal recruiting.

Another way to say that is "it would become legal". In your words, the end of Prohibition "legalized illegal drinking".

Doesn't sound anything like that. College players are allowed to go where they want. Another school, pro etc.

And NFL players are allowed to go to Canada. Since they are allowed to play in Canada, they don't need to play in the NFL, so the NFL doesn't have to pay them. Logic sound familiar?

Yep.

And JB is one of the 100 best in the world too.

OK, I don't disagree. If we allow the players to get paid, the market for coaches would change, and JB would get paid whatever the market decides he's worth. Similar to the NBA.

You know, rrlbees, you have a talent for taking several paragraphs worth of thought, and replying with one sentence rebuttals that make you want to bang your head against the wall. I feel like in the same time you wrote your 30 words, you could've figured out yourself why you're wrong.

It doesn't matter what they produce, it is a law, you have to pay them the same.

Whatever.

I don't understand why the NCAA can't copy the olympic model. The school only gives them a scholarship but they can make money off jersey sales, autographs, appear in commercials, shoes sales, and pretty much profit off of their like-ability. This is a win all for everyone because the school doesn't lose any money no title XI violations and the players still get to make money and it will go to the players that deserve it the most.

This is precisely what the O'Bannon lawsuit is about. Read this article from a few days ago to see why the Jenkins case is even scarier for the NCAA than O'Bannon. The Jenkins case will legalize pay-for-play (or as I like to call it, legal employment) and has the same lawyer that ended Plan B Free Agency for the NFL.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/co...n-vs-ncaa-jenkins-mark-emmert-claudia-wilken/

 

[rrlbees]

You know, rrlbees, you have a talent for taking several paragraphs worth of thought, and replying with one sentence rebuttals that make you want to bang your head against the wall. I feel like in the same time you wrote your 30 words, you could've figured out yourself why you're wrong. Whatever.

Sometimes it only takes a sentence to point out something is wrong. And you're cherry picking since I have several replies in this thread. Some in detail and some with shorter replies. All correct. Players do not have to go to college to play. Simple as that. Have you figured out the profits yet?

 

[triplethrea]

Sometimes it only takes a sentence to point out something is wrong. And you're cherry picking since I have several replies in this thread. Some in detail and some with shorter replies. All correct. Players do not have to go to college to play. Simple as that. Have you figured out the profits yet?

Is Forbes good enough?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/sportsm...-big-east-schools-in-mens-basketball-revenue/

When you factor in men’s basketball expenses, Louisville and Syracuse are the only 2 schools that earned profits in excess of $10 M, and only 3 other schools (Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Marquette) earned profits above $5 M.

The average men’s basketball profits reported was $3.5 M, the median profits was $1.45 M, and the only school reporting losses (albeit minimal losses) was Notre Dame.

TEAM MBB REV MBB EXP MBB PROFITS
Louisville $25,890,003 $9,089,769 $16,800,234
Syracuse $18,309,470 $8,086,376 $10,223,094
Pittsburgh $13,117,849 $6,046,724 $7,071,125
West Virginia $13,306,654 $6,377,761 $6,928,893
Marquette $13,877,475 $8,185,030 $5,692,445
Georgetown $10,074,618 $7,393,234 $2,681,384
Providence $6,460,838 $4,696,862 $1,763,976
Villanova $7,652,470 $6,117,021 $1,535,449
South Florida $4,588,627 $3,215,424 $1,373,203
Cincinnati $4,927,771 $3,754,077 $1,173,694
Connecticut $7,745,145 $6,940,903 $804,242
Rutgers $4,634,026 $4,495,147 $138,879
DePaul $6,528,661 $6,528,661 $-
Seton Hall $6,215,923 $6,215,923 $-
St. John’s $6,741,298 $6,741,298 $-
Notre Dame $4,051,468 $4,060,565 ($9,097)

You can spread 10M a lot of ways between 13 young guys.

 

[triplethrea]

Sometimes it only takes a sentence to point out something is wrong. And you're cherry picking since I have several replies in this thread. Some in detail and some with shorter replies. All correct. Players do not have to go to college to play. Simple as that. Have you figured out the profits yet?

Can you remind me how many players from the USA who made the NBA did not go to college since they instituted the no high school rule? 2? 3? Out of how many?

Maybe I'm wrong, but it feels to me that the system is slightly biased in a certain direction.

 

[rrlbees]

Is Forbes good enough?

No it's not since the SU athletic department runs in the red. Only a few schools make a profit. Those numbers don't take into many of the expenses. Probably just operating expenses. If you're proposing we pay coached 100k and don't worry about facilities which help attract players, we may as well play at Liverpool HS with you as coach. You think our teams take the field without any infrastructure. Plus football and basketball don't even pay for the scholarships at SU.

 

[Todd Gack]

Can you remind me how many players from the USA who made the NBA did not go to college since they instituted the no high school rule? 2? 3? Out of how many? Maybe I'm wrong, but it feels to me that the system is slightly biased in a certain direction.

So they need the college to get them to the NBA? A question: Is the kid at New Mexico State as exploited as the SU kid? Piling on: What cut should the Rhode Scholar out of SU get? How about Mike Tirico, who has driven enough kids there to keep Newhouse in its place? I'm not an SU grad, but an interested party -- but if I were one I couldn't help think the money-race detracts from my degree, or would deter future applicants.

 

[Jamesvillecuse]

Preposterous? Why? Let's do some math.

Syracuse basketball revenue was $25.9M in 2013, 2nd in the country.

Now let's take a professional NFL team such as the Buffalo Bills who rake in approximately $256M a year including revenue sharing and pay $166M in player salaries. In other words, 64.8% of revenue goes towards salaries.

Let's take it easy on Syracuse and say that 50% goes towards player salary. Hell, let's rip the players off completely and give them 25%. That leaves 6.475M (!) to split amongst 13 scholarship players.

The fact that people can't wrap their heads around how bad these kids are getting ripped off is preposterous. The only explanation I have is age discrimination. The market speaks for itself. Justin Beiber is worth millions, and college basketball players bring in similar amounts of money to their programs. Being 19 and a millionaire is not illegal in this country.

Get used to seeing millions next to college players names. It's what they have earned. And they're the ones who deserve the money that you're paying for your tickets and merchandise.

Sources:
http://www.nunesmagician.com/2013/1...-no-2-in-revenue-louisville-ahead-of-the-pack
http://www.forbes.com/teams/buffalo-bills/

And where will the money come from to pay for the non-revenue sports?

 

[triplethrea]

And where will the money come from to pay for the non-revenue sports?

That's not Tyler Roberson or Rakeem Christmas's problem. They earn what they're worth, not what they're worth minus the field hockey team.

So they need the college to get them to the NBA? A question: Is the kid at New Mexico State as exploited as the SU kid? Piling on: What cut should the Rhode Scholar out of SU get? How about Mike Tirico, who has driven enough kids there to keep Newhouse in its place? I'm not an SU grad, but an interested party -- but if I were one I couldn't help think the money-race detracts from my degree, or would deter future applicants.

He's exploited if he's worth more than his scholarship. If New Mexico State would be paying him $75k if pay-for-pay were legal, then he is being exploited. The Rhode Scholar should get whatever cut that his college campus is willing to pay for him/her (usually nothing).

I don't know what Tirico has to do with anything.

No it's not since the SU athletic department runs in the red. Only a few schools make a profit. Those numbers don't take into many of the expenses. Probably just operating expenses. If you're proposing we pay coached 100k and don't worry about facilities which help attract players, we may as well play at Liverpool HS with you as coach. You think our teams take the field without any infrastructure. Plus football and basketball don't even pay for the scholarships at SU.

Questionable.

The second head of this myth is the very pernicious idea, which has gained currency since Mark Emmert took the helm of the NCAA,[1] that because the Athletic Department at most of the thousand-plus schools in the NCAA lose money as a whole, almost no school can afford to pay their football and basketball players. In essence, the money that should go to pay players is being spent elsewhere, so we’re very sorry players, but we’re broke.

Of course, this is ridiculous on several layers. The simplest myth to dispatch is that we don’t need to lump together the thousand-plus NCAA schools when talking about athletes who will end up being paid in a market-base system. Division II and Division III, the FCS level of Division I, and even a good chunk of the FBS would basically not change in the world where schools can choose to pay their college athletes. Most of those schools are hosting sports on their campus in a much more traditional amateur sense, for the benefits of the athletes, with some level of on-campus interest, and with very little outside fanfare or television coverage. In rare cases, a small school might want to add some cash to their current scholarship offer, but that’s unlikely. In the real world outside the NCAA myth bubble, the changes we’re talking about are going to take place at the approximately seventy-five schools in the six major conferences.

http://sportsgeekonomics.tumblr.com...-paying-players-will-mean-that-schools-cannot

 

[triplethrea]

No it's not since the SU athletic department runs in the red. Only a few schools make a profit. Those numbers don't take into many of the expenses. Probably just operating expenses. If you're proposing we pay coached 100k and don't worry about facilities which help attract players, we may as well play at Liverpool HS with you as coach. You think our teams take the field without any infrastructure. Plus football and basketball don't even pay for the scholarships at SU.

Some more:

Mark Emmert, NCAA president, has said that only fourteen NCAA schools make money on sports and so most schools can’t afford to pay their athletes.[6] That seems hard to believe given that the seventy-three schools in the AQ conferences earned $1.4 billion in aggregate. But the trick is that the NCAA is throwing in all of the non-revenue sports, and then asking you to believe that when college football players get paid, so too will college wrestlers, even though football players are bringing in over a billion dollars and wrestlers aren’t bringing in anything. That’s just not how markets work.

 

[rrlbees]

Some more:

What you are proposing is a professional league made up of only football and men's basketball. It already exists.

Btw, should the student get 1000's of dollars or more, that participates in research?

 

[Todd Gack]

That's not Tyler Roberson or Rakeem Christmas's problem. They earn what they're worth, not what they're worth minus the field hockey team. He's exploited if he's worth more than his scholarship. If New Mexico State would be paying him $75k if pay-for-pay were legal, then he is being exploited. The Rhode Scholar should get whatever cut that his college campus is willing to pay for him/her (usually nothing). I don't know what Tirico has to do with anything. Questionable. http://sportsgeekonomics.tumblr.com...-paying-players-will-mean-that-schools-cannot

I was more amped for the soccer game -- despite my love for the ol' U.S. of A, that was an awesome last goal -- than interested in this conversation, in part because the "paying players" argument is so weak. Again, I'm Johnny Liberal -- but understand an institution can't survive without profit. I also don't understand how you square the non-revenue volleyball player being lesser than basketball player no. 12.

 

[triplethrea]

I was more amped for the soccer game -- despite my love for the ol' U.S. of A, that was an awesome last goal -- than interested in this conversation, in part because the "paying players" argument is so weak. Again, I'm Johnny Liberal -- but understand an institution can't survive without profit. I also don't understand how you square the non-revenue volleyball player being lesser than basketball player no. 12.

If you're so not interested in this conversation then don't participate.

What you are proposing is a professional league made up of only football and men's basketball. It already exists.

Btw, should the student get 1000's of dollars or more, that participates in research?

Is there a rule that there can't be more than one? NCAA football and basketball pulls in billions of dollars every year. I'd say there is room for another professional league.

If someone is willing to pay it, then sure. What's your argument? I think I know what you're getting at and here is the response:

The idea that before we pay student-athletes, the Athletic Department must make money is a false argument. We do not ask History professors to work solely for room and board because the History Department doesn’t make money, and in particular, we do not allow colleges to collude on the salaries of History professors in order to help History Departments break even. Similarly, we don’t ask college sports coaches to work for a price-fixed wage just because the Athletic Departments don’t earn money, although in the past the NCAA has tried to do just this and lost in court.[9]

 

[Jamesvillecuse]

you are right they earn what they are worth and that is their scholarship. This will never happen anyways so you can propose whatever scenario you want. What exactly has Tyler Roberson done to earn all this money he would be paid?

 

[rrlbees]

If you're so not interested in this conversation then don't participate. Is there a rule that there can't be more than one? NCAA football and basketball pulls in billions of dollars every year. I'd say there is room for another professional league. If someone is willing to pay it, then sure. What's your argument? I think I know what you're getting at and here is the response:

You also don't know how much of any profit is because of any one player. SU's attendance or TV eyeballs isn't just because of any one player. People that go to the Dome or watch on TV also do so just because it is SU. The name is a brand. Also because of the Dome. Because of JB. The culture.

Just give them a stipend like I said earlier. Whether that is $50/wk, $100/wk or $1000/mon I don't care. But what you proposed about 50% of revenues or whatever is ludicrous and overlooks a whole lot of moving parts.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

And where will the money come from to pay for the non-revenue sports?

That's why I don't think you want payment coming directly from the schools. Allow non-rev athletes to sign their own endorsements. That would be AWESOME for some of them. You can't tell me that there wouldn't be businesses that would love to have a quality women's volleyball player and role model as a spokesperson that would attract moms and their daughters to the business, for example.