The Way to Keep Good Players From Jumping to the NBA

[Todd Gack]

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:

It's interesting to me now because you're still fighting -- like a cat and a laser pointer. There are legit arguments to pay players -- and you're missing the mark.

 

[JrodCuse]

You do realize that the type of player SU recruits do have a choice for the most part. They can get paid right out of high school. NBA, D League, overseas, etc. Nobody is holding them hostage.

I don't think paying kids millions to go to school is the answer, but in the NBA a kid can't just goto the NBA or D league if they wan't to, they have to meet the requirement which is I believe 19 or 1 year removed from college. So if that kid doesn't wan't to go to college, he can go overseas or just sit out for a year and wait til he hits the age limit.

 

[Todd Gack]

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.

How many basketball players have shoe deals? 20? Who are they going to give their money to -- Carmelo or the freshman? And who in hell buys volleyball gear? Does Mizunno still exist?

 

[Briancuse]

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



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?



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.



Whatever.



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/

Good rebuttal

 

[OttoinGrotto]

How many basketball players have shoe deals? 20? Who are they going to give their money to -- Carmelo or the freshman? And who in hell buys volleyball gear? Does Mizunno still exist?

Don't confuse having your own shoe with having a shoe deal.

Also, yes, I absolutely believe this would be a boon to non-rev athletes as well. The school can maintain the scholarship and grade requirements and so on. Meanwhile, the athlete is free to sign their own endorsements or sell their likeness.

 

[triplethrea]

It's interesting to me now because you're still fighting -- like a cat and a laser pointer. There are legit arguments to pay players -- and you're missing the mark.

A second ago you were laughing that the arguments were too weak. Now you're going for some quasi-patronizing stuff about how I'm missing the mark. If you want to debate, we'll have one but I won't be replying if you keep up this passive-aggressive girly stuff.

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.

I personally don't. But the market sorts itself out. How much is Jared Sullinger worth and how much is the Celtics brand worth? Who decides? Same exact thing. College basketball isn't some paradox that evades economic theory. The numbers in my OP were off the top of my head, although I'm guessing they will become the norm for top college players. It all sorts itself out.

Then what percentage is not ludicrous? 1%? 0.0000004%?
$1000/mo. or $12k/year for 13 players is $156K total from $25M in revenue or 0.6%.

That's not ridiculous?

 

[Todd Gack]

Don't confuse having your own shoe with having a shoe deal. Also, yes, I absolutely believe this would be a boon to non-rev athletes as well. The school can maintain the scholarship and grade requirements and so on. Meanwhile, the athlete is free to sign their own endorsements or sell their likeness.

I've worn New Balance for the last 15 years of my life. I was being generous with 20 -- name me 10 players with a shoe deal. While you're at it, name me five people from the last three drafts (including this one) that you'd supplant the earlier 15 with.

On the non-revenue sport question: Without looking it up, name the top collegiate volleyball team? Or softball? Hell, who was the Lady Orange's leading scorer in basketball?

 

[Todd Gack]

A second ago you were laughing that the arguments were too weak. Now you're going for some quasi-patronizing stuff about how I'm missing the mark. If you want to debate, we'll have one but I won't be replying if you keep up this passive-aggressive girly stuff. I personally don't. But the market sorts itself out. How much is Jared Sullinger worth and how much is the Celtics brand worth? Who decides? Same exact thing. College basketball isn't some paradox that evades economic theory. The numbers in my OP were off the top of my head, although I'm guessing they will become the norm for top college players. It all sorts itself out. Then what percentage is not ludicrous? 1%? 0.0000004%? $1000/mo. or $12k/year for 13 players is $156K total from $25M in revenue or 0.6%. That's not ridiculous?

It's not "quasi" anything -- I'm straight-up patronizing, because your argument is so weak (and I took tomorrow off; also it's rare that Bees and I see eye-to-eye -- it's fun to be one of the cool kids).

 

[rrlbees]

It's not "quasi" anything -- I'm straight-up patronizing, because your argument is so weak (and I took tomorrow off; also it's rare that Bees and I see eye-to-eye -- it's fun to be one of the cool kids).

Ha. I don't even remember any back and forths with you.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I've worn New Balance for the last 15 years of my life. I was being generous with 20 -- name me 10 players with a shoe deal. While you're at it, name me five people from the last three drafts (including this one) that you'd supplant the earlier 15 with.

On the non-revenue sport question: Without looking it up, name the top collegiate volleyball team? Or softball? Hell, who was the Lady Orange's leading scorer in basketball?

Nearly every professional athlete has a shoe deal.

It doesn't matter that I can't name the best women's volleyball players, because I'm not the target demo for that.

I get it. It's Sunday night and you're bored. But seriously, you're thinking in a really narrow fashion.

 

[triplethrea]

It's not "quasi" anything -- I'm straight-up patronizing, because your argument is so weak (and I took tomorrow off; also it's rare that Bees and I see eye-to-eye -- it's fun to be one of the cool kids).

I'm glad you're not being passive aggressive anymore. Not sure what I did to get your panties in a bunch.

Is "Ad Hominem" still available as a username for you? What about "I didn't win my debate fast enough so I'll resort to being patronizing and calling the opposing argument "weak" even though it's not and cracking jokes to cover it up, then acting tough when called out on it."

My argument is weak enough to have been filed in an anti-trust lawsuit against the NCAA last week.
http://www.bgsfirm.com/college-spor...-lawsuit-challenging-the-athletic-scholarship

 

[Todd Gack]

Nearly every professional athlete has a shoe deal. It doesn't matter that I can't name the best women's volleyball players, because I'm not the target demo for that. I get it. It's Sunday night and you're bored. But seriously, you're thinking in a really narrow fashion.

Do you want to take back the "nearly every professional athlete" line? Which shoe does Alex Len rep?

On the Syracuse undercard question -- without looking it up -- name either of Syracuse's top female or male cross country runners. Also who makes their gear?

 

[Todd Gack]

Ha. I don't even remember any back and forths with you.

Ha, I do -- the Irish in me.

 

[skurey]

why do we want to keep the good players from jumping to the NBA?

 

[Todd Gack]

I'm glad you're not being passive aggressive anymore. Not sure what I did to get your panties in a bunch.

Can you not wear panties and talk sports?

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Do you want to take back the "nearly every professional athlete" line? Which shoe does Alex Len rep?

On the Syracuse undercard question -- without looking it up -- name either of Syracuse's top female or male cross country runners. Also who makes their gear?

Look, on the shoe thing you're just ignorant. http://sneakerreport.com/features/every-brand-nba-rookies-signed-year/6/ Len is a Nike man.

Other than trolling, I can't understand why you think quizzing me on non-rev SU sports makes it false that different markets would find different types of athletes interesting.

 

[Todd Gack]

Look, on the shoe thing you're just ignorant. http://sneakerreport.com/features/every-brand-nba-rookies-signed-year/6/ Len is a Nike man. Other than trolling, I can't understand why you think quizzing me on non-rev SU sports makes it false that different markets would find different types of athletes interesting.

Agreed, I randomly picked the wrong name -- but your retort provided the evidence of how I was right: Did you appreciate how there's nothing between nos 17 and 41? Were there no professional athletes drafted then?

On the other point, because you think that people should be paid what they're worth -- with which I agree -- but you also think it's fair for them to piggyback off an institution's name -- with which I don't.

I'm not an SU grad -- and have no respect for one who'd piss away their degree for another championship.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

By paying them.

So we're recruiting Thomas Bryant, for example. Let's say his top three teams are Ohio State, Syracuse, and Seton Hall.

Ohio State offers:
1st year: 1.1M, 2nd year: 1.3M, 3rd year: 1.5M, 4th year: 1.7M
Full scholarship (obviously included, it's like signing an NBA player and telling him he has to pay a membership to play for the team. You begin to see how nonsense the "scholarship is priceless" logic is in economic terms.)
Off campus house
100k signing bonus/Buyout clause

Syracuse offers:
1st year: 1M, 2nd year: 1.5M, 3rd year: 2.0M, 4th year: 2.5M
Full scholarship
Off campus house
75K signing bonus/Buyout clause

Seton Hall offers:
1st year: 500k, 2nd year: 750k, 3rd year: 1M, 4th year: 1.25M
Full scholarship
Off campus house
50K signing bonus/Buyout clause

All price increases are dependent on pre-agreed achievements (minutes played, points, awards, etc.). If a player has injury issues or does not turn out like expected (Dajuan Coleman), they can be bought out of their contract for a price and are free to join another college team while they are eligible, or jump to the professional ranks. Most likely they will sign with a college team.

They are receiving money right away. There is no more jumping to the NBA to "get mom out of the bad neighborhood". Jerami Grant is not leaving this year to help his family's financial problems, since he would be getting paid at Syracuse. Players are getting paid while they are developing. Now on to the big stars:

Tyler Ennis

Let's say his freshman year he had a contract for 450k and was due 650k for his sophmore year. Let's say he outplayed it and is now looking for top college PG money, which will be on par with the NBA rookie wage scale. Let's say Ennis is projected to go between 12th-18th in the draft. The wage scale for those draft positions ranges from 1.2M-1.6M. Now Syracuse has the leverage to offer him a new contract with increased pay on par with the NBA. Why in the world would Tyler Ennis leave now?

Wiggins, Randle, Embiid, and Smart would all stay 2-4 years. They would jump into the NBA Larry Bird/Magic Johnson/Michael Jordan style with 4 years of college experience behind their belt. The "College lifestyle" for these players would be similar to the "NBA lifestyle". Money, groupies, partying, cars, houses. Why the rush to jump to the NBA? CJ Fair wouldn't have even thought about the NBA after his Junior year. For most players, this is the most money they will earn in their lives.

The main reasons I could see the very top players leaving early is that an NBA contract gives them a jump start to their 2nd NBA contract which is where the SERIOUS money is. So now we are talking about only the VERY ELITE players at risk to leave, rather than any good player with NBA potential. But in a free economy, teams like Kentucky or Duke can counter--act this by offering contracts high above the NBA rookie wage scale. If this forces the NBA to raise the rookie wage scale, WELL WELL WELL, turns out these players are worth more than they are paying them.

The NCAA loves to talk about how most of these college athletes never go pro. That's completely true. How many college football and basketball stars can you remember that graced magazine covers in college and then went undrafted or flamed out in 1-2 years? They may have been worth millions of dollars to the university for those 1-4 years but didn't get a penny. They never have a chance to earn that kind of money again in their lives. This way, they may never make the pros, but they'll still get what the market says they deserve for at least a short while.

I'll leave you with this little history lesson:
Look into the Plan B free agency the NFL had between 1987-1992 that restricted player movement between teams. During the anti-trust lawsuit against the NFL, the NFL lawyer was quoted as saying that "Ending Plan B free agency may be the destruction of the NFL". Pure fear-mongering by the corporate institution in order to keep wage leverage in their favor. Sound familiar?

Not only will paying players NOT ruin college basketball, it will IMPROVE the game by keeping the best players around most of their college careers.

99% of Division 1 players won't get drafted. Most of these kids aren't getting millions to play basketball by anyone. The universities are not going to do it. The D League only pays between 12 and 24k per year. Europe pays between 65k and 100k or so. The reality is most schools are not bringing in revenue like Syracuse. If the kids are good enough to get someone to pay them to play, let them go and play pro ball. For 99% of of the kids, the opportunity to get a free education and room and board probably out weighs what they personally generate for the school they play for. Baye Moussa Keita got a degree from Syracuse worth probably 200k. What's the market rate for a role player that averaged 2 points per game for his entire career at SU? He might be making 12k per year in the D league. Mookie Jones didn't generate revenue for Syracuse Basketball and he got the opportunity for a free education and the opportunity to play for a elite basketball program to grow his game. What would he be doing if there was no college basketball? These kids don't have to go to college.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

99% of Division 1 players won't get drafted. Most of these kids aren't getting millions to play basketball by anyone. The universities are not going to do it. The D League only pays between 12 and 24k per year. Europe pays between 65k and 100k or so. The reality is most schools are not bringing in revenue like Syracuse. If the kids are good enough to get someone to pay them to play, let them go and play pro ball. For 99% of of the kids, the opportunity to get a free education and room and board probably out weighs what they personally generate for the school they play for. Baye Moussa Keita got a degree from Syracuse worth probably 200k. What's the market rate for a role player that averaged 2 points per game for his entire career at SU? He might be making 12k per year in the D league. Mookie Jones didn't generate revenue for Syracuse Basketball and he got the opportunity for a free education and the opportunity to play for a elite basketball program to grow his game. What would he be doing if there was no college basketball? These kids don't have to go to college.

Why can't both things happen? Why can't Baye get his scholarship from Syracuse, and also have a deal with Dinosaur BBQ or Coleman's or Topps or whatever that pays him a little bit to appear in a commercial or at the location?

 

[CaptainJ]

Before I opened the thread, my answer to the question was, "pull a Gillooly".

 

[CaptainJ]

I had to stop reading after a ways on the 2nd page. Some of the logic is ridiculous. While I dont necessarily agree with either side of the debate, the "it's the law" is one of the weakest arguments I've ever heard. I live in Colorado, and we overturned a couple of deeply entrenched laws(or, some would say that those in charge if the diebold machines did) that in the end will start a chain reaction that will someday lead to billions in revenue shifted away from big pharma/medical, lumber/paper, cotton, steel, etc, etc, and redirect them to to hemp farmers and cannabis based treatments/cures, and whatever other research it leads to once eyes and minds are opened to new possibilities they couldnt have fathomed with their toxic diet of mainstream media. The US Supreme Court also allowed states to ban the ludicrous and outdated affirmative action discrimination, and allow people equal rights once again, rather than have the government sponsor discriminatation.

The OP, whether we agree with it or not, is examining POSSIBLE change. Anything is possible given the right set of circumanstances, and we dont even need to get into quantum physics to understand this, although those "laws" do indeed change as well. It just requires us to reach a tipping point to evolve. War is over, if we want it.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

Why can't both things happen? Why can't Baye get his scholarship from Syracuse, and also have a deal with Dinosaur BBQ or Coleman's or Topps or whatever that pays him a little bit to appear in a commercial or at the location?

Good question. I don't have a problem with that. IIRC, kids can't work like other students, and they are at the school basically year round, so they would have the opportunity to earn some extra money, but that's different than the schools paying kids millions of dollars to get them to come to their program.

 

[Jamesvillecuse]

I personally would be more in favor of a monthly stipend but I would have no problem if the player got a paid for local commercials. I just don't agree with the pay for play, maybe the amount of the stipend could be tied to different amounts for gpa the better the gpa the more the stipend is or you have to achieve a certain gpa to get the stipend

 

[two3zone]

Agreed, I randomly picked the wrong name -- but your retort provided the evidence of how I was right: Did you appreciate how there's nothing between nos 17 and 41? Were there no professional athletes drafted then? On the other point, because you think that people should be paid what they're worth -- with which I agree -- but you also think it's fair for them to piggyback off an institution's name -- with which I don't. I'm not an SU grad -- and have no respect for one who'd piss away their degree for another championship.

Look at the date the article was written, there was time for a player to sign after it was written before the season, I also don't believe it showed every players contract, think it showed the lottery and then a couple of weird contracts like Undrafted Pressey and some 42 overall pick who signed with and1 who doesn't have many signed players at all. Below is the numbers of players signed by company, the total amount of players signed is larger than say 13 players per 30 NBA teams. You lost the argument, I'm not sure why you're still arguing about it. You tried to say less than 20 guys had a shoe contract, you lost that one, then you bring up Alex Len acting confident enough that he wouldn't have one, you lost that one, and now you're continuing to pull at strings trying to be right about this but you're not going to be. 98% of NBA players have shoe contracts, it is what it is and you're just wrong. Deal with it.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Look at the date the article was written, there was time for a player to sign after it was written before the season, I also don't believe it showed every players contract, think it showed the lottery and then a couple of weird contracts like Undrafted Pressey and some 42 overall pick who signed with and1 who doesn't have many signed players at all. Below is the numbers of players signed by company, the total amount of players signed is larger than say 13 players per 30 NBA teams. You lost the argument, I'm not sure why you're still arguing about it. You tried to say less than 20 guys had a shoe contract, you lost that one, then you bring up Alex Len acting confident enough that he wouldn't have one, you lost that one, and now you're continuing to pull at strings trying to be right about this but you're not going to be. 98% of NBA players have shoe contracts, it is what it is and you're just wrong. Deal with it.



View attachment 15943

Drop the mic, man! Drop it!