If not for NCAA rules about amateurism (and the tax exemption schools get for complying), would any of these things occur at all? And, if they did, would they be considered unethical in a free market for player talent?

(09-27-2017 09:36 AM)ken d Wrote:  If not for NCAA rules about amateurism (and the tax exemption schools get for complying), would any of these things occur at all? And, if they did, would they be considered unethical in a free market for player talent?

Good question.

Its hard to think of a related general employment situation because most employees don't do endorsements. Some kind of restraint of trade if an advertising agency steered actors to a certain studio? Or legal compensation?

Andy Staples writes that the NCAA's shamateurism should somehow be dismantled. I agree.

The NCAA’s Rules Gave Rise to a Generation of Pimps. Here's How It Can Clean Them Up

Quote:The fairest, most equitable solution would be to create a system that gets the money in the hands of the people with the actual skills the market values. I suggested such a system six years ago, but it remains too radical for most of the people who run college sports. For some reason, these people abhor the idea of letting the performers the market values most receive the most compensation even though that conceit governs nearly every industry in this country. They’re against capitalism for the players, but they support it wholeheartedly for themselves.

Unfortunately, that double standard is how they went from wannabe field-levelers to pimp-enablers. But since the vast majority of the people who run college sports would rather not enable people who prey on young athletes, perhaps they’ll consider a more modest proposal. I only suggested this one five years ago.

Let the players have agents. This may sound radical, but officials in several conferences have kicked around this possibility for years. College baseball players already are allowed have them. (Though the NCAA calls them “advisors.”) Simply extend that courtesy to all athletes. Chances are the agents would mostly want to sign football and basketball players, since that’s where the bulk of the money is.

(09-27-2017 11:03 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Andy Staples writes that the NCAA's shamateurism should somehow be dismantled. I agree.

The NCAA’s Rules Gave Rise to a Generation of Pimps. Here's How It Can Clean Them Up

Quote:The fairest, most equitable solution would be to create a system that gets the money in the hands of the people with the actual skills the market values. I suggested such a system six years ago, but it remains too radical for most of the people who run college sports. For some reason, these people abhor the idea of letting the performers the market values most receive the most compensation even though that conceit governs nearly every industry in this country. They’re against capitalism for the players, but they support it wholeheartedly for themselves.

Unfortunately, that double standard is how they went from wannabe field-levelers to pimp-enablers. But since the vast majority of the people who run college sports would rather not enable people who prey on young athletes, perhaps they’ll consider a more modest proposal. I only suggested this one five years ago.

Let the players have agents. This may sound radical, but officials in several conferences have kicked around this possibility for years. College baseball players already are allowed have them. (Though the NCAA calls them “advisors.”) Simply extend that courtesy to all athletes. Chances are the agents would mostly want to sign football and basketball players, since that’s where the bulk of the money is.

Compensating student athletes is only one part of this. It's time to examine how and why schools get tax exemption status. There is so much money moving around higher education, and it's not tracked...because people there don't want to track it, or institutions are ill-staffed to properly account for it. But, the message about these poor old schools and the inability to afford these costs...never seem to go away.

(09-27-2017 11:03 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Andy Staples writes that the NCAA's shamateurism should somehow be dismantled. I agree.

The NCAA’s Rules Gave Rise to a Generation of Pimps. Here's How It Can Clean Them Up

Quote:The fairest, most equitable solution would be to create a system that gets the money in the hands of the people with the actual skills the market values. I suggested such a system six years ago, but it remains too radical for most of the people who run college sports. For some reason, these people abhor the idea of letting the performers the market values most receive the most compensation even though that conceit governs nearly every industry in this country. They’re against capitalism for the players, but they support it wholeheartedly for themselves.

Unfortunately, that double standard is how they went from wannabe field-levelers to pimp-enablers. But since the vast majority of the people who run college sports would rather not enable people who prey on young athletes, perhaps they’ll consider a more modest proposal. I only suggested this one five years ago.

Let the players have agents. This may sound radical, but officials in several conferences have kicked around this possibility for years. College baseball players already are allowed have them. (Though the NCAA calls them “advisors.”) Simply extend that courtesy to all athletes. Chances are the agents would mostly want to sign football and basketball players, since that’s where the bulk of the money is.

This is the main problem, other than the fact that coaches, boosters, etc...are lacking in any type of morality.

I think it's fair to bring up the amateurism vs professionalism argument...

With that said, I don't think paying players is the right idea and while it certainly sounds fair in a capitalist system, it's going to end up causing more problems than it solves. College athletics will end up looking very different and foreign to those who have come to love it and support it.

There are many facets to that discussion and I won't go into all of them here. What I wanted to say though is that you don't have to pay players to solve the problems that this sort of situation is bringing to light. The NCAA needs reform, it just doesn't have to be as extreme as abandoning amateurism.

1. There's no good reason a player shouldn't be able to make money off of his of her likeness. There is no good reason an athlete should have to turn over such rights to an institution and receive nothing in return. In other words, while I have no problem with athletes agreeing to abide by an agreement to remain an amateur(and it is fully the young person's decision to do so), I don't see that that should have an impact on whether or not an individual could get paid for endorsements and the like. As long as the school or a booster isn't paying a player directly in order to participate in athletics then what the player does otherwise shouldn't matter. That's especially true if an athlete wants to have a YouTube channel and has the wherewithal to make money off of it for example.

And yes, it's unfair. If you're a star athlete then you're going to have endorsement opportunities that most players wouldn't have. It would similarly be unfair if we were to break the principle of amateurism to start paying players and all of a sudden you've got "employees" who balk at the notion of being paid precisely what their less talented teammates are making. You want a disruption to the system on every level? That will cause it right there.

At least with deregulating endorsements, you're allowing the player to do as they wish outside the context of the team. The market decides instead of having messy contract situations involving the team and coaches.

2. Allowing an open market for endorsements should prevent this sort of nonsense from happening in the first place. If you don't have to cut special deals with coaches or middlemen to get certain athletes on your payroll then there's no need to bribe anyone. Just deal with a player on an individual level as you would in a normal business dealing. No shadiness and certainly no middlemen required.

3. As far as NCAA reform goes, I think the schools should do more for the athletes in the form of a benefit package. That's essentially what they get now...scholarship, room and board, and other perks. Just allow schools to be a little more comprehensive or generous with their benefits. The lack that some kids have is what has brought about the call for FCOA scholarships.

(09-27-2017 04:36 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  1. There's no good reason a player shouldn't be able to make money off of his of her likeness. There is no good reason an athlete should have to turn over such rights to an institution and receive nothing in return. In other words, while I have no problem with athletes agreeing to abide by an agreement to remain an amateur(and it is fully the young person's decision to do so), I don't see that that should have an impact on whether or not an individual could get paid for endorsements and the like. As long as the school or a booster isn't paying a player directly in order to participate in athletics then what the player does otherwise shouldn't matter.

Under your proposal, adidas could pay Brian Bowen directly instead of allegedly passing cash in envelopes and using a sham investment firm to funnel the money to his family.

EDIT: I'm going to split this into a new thread separate from the discussion about the federal investigation.

(09-27-2017 04:42 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-27-2017 04:36 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  1. There's no good reason a player shouldn't be able to make money off of his of her likeness. There is no good reason an athlete should have to turn over such rights to an institution and receive nothing in return. In other words, while I have no problem with athletes agreeing to abide by an agreement to remain an amateur(and it is fully the young person's decision to do so), I don't see that that should have an impact on whether or not an individual could get paid for endorsements and the like. As long as the school or a booster isn't paying a player directly in order to participate in athletics then what the player does otherwise shouldn't matter.

Under your proposal, adidas could pay Brian Bowen directly instead of allegedly passing cash in envelopes and using a sham investment firm to funnel the money to his family.

EDIT: I'm going to split this into a new thread separate from the discussion about the federal investigation.

Pretty much.

I think it would be better that way. Bowen could have decided who to sign with and negotiated a reasonable contract without the cloud of impropriety and without middlemen sucking up funds and muddying the process.

I think the only question would be what if an athlete signs with a company that doesn't have an apparel deal with the athlete's school of choice? Things could get a little hairy then and it might lead to companies steering athletes to certain schools rather than being a simple business transaction. Essentially this is what's already happening so the question would be how to make it fair for everyone?

I don't know that there's an easy answer to that, but I think there is a way to deter it...

Instead of individual schools signing deals with apparel companies, perhaps whole conferences should negotiate deals. I think the leagues would actually bring down more money that way and the companies would be less inclined to steer athletes because it would be more difficult to control the process and could end up costing them money in future negotiations.

-Athletes win by getting endorsement deals
-Schools win by having fewer scumbags hanging around
-Conferences win by getting more money from the apparel companies
-Government wins because they can tax the endorsements

I would rather the schools just give the kids a stipend and be done with it. Just publicize the amount - and get the middle men out of the game.

An SEC program can give $30k, an American/A10/Big East program maybe like $15k, and a MAAC program maybe $2-3k. Let's just do this above board and regulate it.

I would rather we just create an actual junior league, NFLITE.

I can't speak for everybody but the level of play on the NCAA level isn't what interests me.

If anything, all of this swirling nonsense has detracted from the game.

(09-27-2017 09:59 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I would rather we just create an actual junior league, NFLITE.

I can't speak for everybody but the level of play on the NCAA level isn't what interests me.

If anything, all of this swirling nonsense has detracted from the game.

We've over-realigned (if such a word could exist). Conferences are too big, and for many schools they are in divisions that make little sense.

For instance: Nebraska wants to play Colorado, Oklahoma, Missouri, Texas, and Kansas.
They currently see NONE of those schools.

A junior league wouldn't fix the issue anyhow.

(09-27-2017 10:06 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(09-27-2017 09:59 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I would rather we just create an actual junior league, NFLITE.

I can't speak for everybody but the level of play on the NCAA level isn't what interests me.

If anything, all of this swirling nonsense has detracted from the game.

We've over-realigned (if such a word could exist). Conferences are too big, and for many schools they are in divisions that make little sense.

For instance: Nebraska wants to play Colorado, Oklahoma, Missouri, Texas, and Kansas.
They currently see NONE of those schools.

A junior league wouldn't fix the issue anyhow.

To clarify, I'm talking about a junior league separate and apart from the college system.

If you strip away some of the junk from the top I feel there would be a ripple effect emanating from this.

We'd see these overly large economic conferences dissipate which would allow regular fans to return to rooting for their schools and their schools playing the right teams without haveing to weigh all the economic factors.

(09-27-2017 08:41 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(09-27-2017 04:42 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-27-2017 04:36 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  1. There's no good reason a player shouldn't be able to make money off of his of her likeness. There is no good reason an athlete should have to turn over such rights to an institution and receive nothing in return. In other words, while I have no problem with athletes agreeing to abide by an agreement to remain an amateur(and it is fully the young person's decision to do so), I don't see that that should have an impact on whether or not an individual could get paid for endorsements and the like. As long as the school or a booster isn't paying a player directly in order to participate in athletics then what the player does otherwise shouldn't matter.

Under your proposal, adidas could pay Brian Bowen directly instead of allegedly passing cash in envelopes and using a sham investment firm to funnel the money to his family.

EDIT: I'm going to split this into a new thread separate from the discussion about the federal investigation.

Pretty much.

I think it would be better that way. Bowen could have decided who to sign with and negotiated a reasonable contract without the cloud of impropriety and without middlemen sucking up funds and muddying the process.

I think the only question would be what if an athlete signs with a company that doesn't have an apparel deal with the athlete's school of choice? Things could get a little hairy then and it might lead to companies steering athletes to certain schools rather than being a simple business transaction. Essentially this is what's already happening so the question would be how to make it fair for everyone?

I don't know that there's an easy answer to that, but I think there is a way to deter it...

Instead of individual schools signing deals with apparel companies, perhaps whole conferences should negotiate deals. I think the leagues would actually bring down more money that way and the companies would be less inclined to steer athletes because it would be more difficult to control the process and could end up costing them money in future negotiations.

-Athletes win by getting endorsement deals
-Schools win by having fewer scumbags hanging around
-Conferences win by getting more money from the apparel companies
-Government wins because they can tax the endorsements

One problem is that the $$$ trail between Nike/adidas/UA and athletic departments, or in hoops between Nike/adidas/UA and coaches, is too entrenched.

But we can't fix every problem in the system at once. To help the players, let's say in basketball, it would be enough to allow the shoe/apparel companies to pay them. If it's a matter of Nike bidding for one 5-star player on behalf of Oregon while adidas bids for the same player on behalf of Louisville (the Bowen example alleged by the feds), then at least the player can get money directly instead of parts of it being skimmed off by bagmen, runners, and assistant coaches every step of the way.

And obviously there are endorsements and outside income to be had from sources other than those three companies. If USC football superfan Will Ferrell wants to pay Sam Darnold to endorse his movies, or be in his movies, let it happen. Maybe Papa John will pay Lamar Jackson (instead of Peyton Manning) to be in commercials for mediocre pizza, or some rich Texas businessman will splash endorsement money on Longhorn football players. Whatever. Olympic athletes have endorsement deals and sponsors. College athletes should have at least the same opportunities, and probably should have an even freer market.

As Staples argues in the article I linked, it's not a level playing field and never will be, so at least let the athletes who are generating the money have the opportunity to get some of it directly.

My big problem with dropping amateurism is I don't see how it fixes the problem. Would have paying Brian Bowen or any of these kids $25,000 a year... or heck even $100,000 a year preventing them from taking another $100,000 from Adidas to steer him to a certain school?

(09-27-2017 11:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-27-2017 08:41 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(09-27-2017 04:42 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-27-2017 04:36 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  1. There's no good reason a player shouldn't be able to make money off of his of her likeness. There is no good reason an athlete should have to turn over such rights to an institution and receive nothing in return. In other words, while I have no problem with athletes agreeing to abide by an agreement to remain an amateur(and it is fully the young person's decision to do so), I don't see that that should have an impact on whether or not an individual could get paid for endorsements and the like. As long as the school or a booster isn't paying a player directly in order to participate in athletics then what the player does otherwise shouldn't matter.

Under your proposal, adidas could pay Brian Bowen directly instead of allegedly passing cash in envelopes and using a sham investment firm to funnel the money to his family.

EDIT: I'm going to split this into a new thread separate from the discussion about the federal investigation.

Pretty much.

I think it would be better that way. Bowen could have decided who to sign with and negotiated a reasonable contract without the cloud of impropriety and without middlemen sucking up funds and muddying the process.

I think the only question would be what if an athlete signs with a company that doesn't have an apparel deal with the athlete's school of choice? Things could get a little hairy then and it might lead to companies steering athletes to certain schools rather than being a simple business transaction. Essentially this is what's already happening so the question would be how to make it fair for everyone?

I don't know that there's an easy answer to that, but I think there is a way to deter it...

Instead of individual schools signing deals with apparel companies, perhaps whole conferences should negotiate deals. I think the leagues would actually bring down more money that way and the companies would be less inclined to steer athletes because it would be more difficult to control the process and could end up costing them money in future negotiations.

-Athletes win by getting endorsement deals
-Schools win by having fewer scumbags hanging around
-Conferences win by getting more money from the apparel companies
-Government wins because they can tax the endorsements

One problem is that the $$$ trail between Nike/adidas/UA and athletic departments, or in hoops between Nike/adidas/UA and coaches, is too entrenched.

But we can't fix every problem in the system at once. To help the players, let's say in basketball, it would be enough to allow the shoe/apparel companies to pay them. If it's a matter of Nike bidding for one 5-star player on behalf of Oregon while adidas bids for the same player on behalf of Louisville (the Bowen example alleged by the feds), then at least the player can get money directly instead of parts of it being skimmed off by bagmen, runners, and assistant coaches every step of the way.

And obviously there are endorsements and outside income to be had from sources other than those three companies. If USC football superfan Will Ferrell wants to pay Sam Darnold to endorse his movies, or be in his movies, let it happen. Maybe Papa John will pay Lamar Jackson (instead of Peyton Manning) to be in commercials for mediocre pizza, or some rich Texas businessman will splash endorsement money on Longhorn football players. Whatever. Olympic athletes have endorsement deals and sponsors. College athletes should have at least the same opportunities, and probably should have an even freer market.

As Staples argues in the article I linked, it's not a level playing field and never will be, so at least let the athletes who are generating the money have the opportunity to get some of it directly.

You're correct and I don't think there would be any way to regulate in earnest what boosters might be willing to offer in such circumstances. And frankly, I don't really have a problem with it. As you said, there is no level playing field, but every major school has wealthy alumni that could theoretically come up with some way to pay these kids outside of the confines of athletics. They would have to weigh the economic value of such moves and whether or not the kid was worth it so I don't think it would be the wild, wild west. That and if the money is subject to taxation then everything has to be out in the open.

My primary concern with deterring the shoe companies is that there are so few of them. It would be way too easy for them to affect the competitive balance of college athletics if they decided to do so. Their ability to deal with each school on an individual basis allows for greater leverage. If you significantly reduce the number of partners they can negotiate with(conferences instead of schools) then that should limit their ability to monkey with the product on the field/court.

(09-28-2017 09:07 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  My big problem with dropping amateurism is I don't see how it fixes the problem. Would have paying Brian Bowen or any of these kids $25,000 a year... or heck even $100,000 a year preventing them from taking another $100,000 from Adidas to steer him to a certain school?

That's one of the reasons I still support amateurism.

Tony Barnhart once said in regard to this matter, "I don't know anyone who would turn down a raise."

(09-28-2017 09:13 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  My primary concern with deterring the shoe companies is that there are so few of them. It would be way too easy for them to affect the competitive balance of college athletics if they decided to do so.

The shoe companies already affect the competitive balance of college basketball.

Look at the programs that get a steady stream of elite recruits. Would some, most, or all of those recruits go elsewhere if not for the shoe money? If there was no money changing hands at all, would we see so many 5-star recruits playing college hoops (at least for one season) 2,000 miles from their high school?

At least two of the programs mentioned in the federal investigation hired an assistant coach within the past few years who has strong connections to the shoe money. We already knew the shoe companies have a hand in head coaching moves, e.g., many head coaches with Nike connections who move to a new school will only move to a school also signed up with Nike.

(09-28-2017 09:55 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 09:13 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  My primary concern with deterring the shoe companies is that there are so few of them. It would be way too easy for them to affect the competitive balance of college athletics if they decided to do so.

The shoe companies already affect the competitive balance of college basketball.

Look at the programs that get a steady stream of elite recruits. Would some, most, or all of those recruits go elsewhere if not for the shoe money? If there was no money changing hands at all, would we see so many 5-star recruits playing college hoops (at least for one season) 2,000 miles from their high school?

At least two of the programs mentioned in the federal investigation hired an assistant coach within the past few years who has strong connections to the shoe money. We already knew the shoe companies have a hand in head coaching moves, e.g., many head coaches with Nike connections who move to a new school will only move to a school also signed up with Nike.

Basketball players have always gravitated to the big name schools and coaches. Its their ticket to the NBA. How many big name schools are in NYC and DC anyway? Those extra kids have to go somewhere.

Because one player can make such a difference, basketball recruiting has never been as regional as football.

(09-28-2017 09:55 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 09:13 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  My primary concern with deterring the shoe companies is that there are so few of them. It would be way too easy for them to affect the competitive balance of college athletics if they decided to do so.

The shoe companies already affect the competitive balance of college basketball.

Look at the programs that get a steady stream of elite recruits. Would some, most, or all of those recruits go elsewhere if not for the shoe money? If there was no money changing hands at all, would we see so many 5-star recruits playing college hoops (at least for one season) 2,000 miles from their high school?

At least two of the programs mentioned in the federal investigation hired an assistant coach within the past few years who has strong connections to the shoe money. We already knew the shoe companies have a hand in head coaching moves, e.g., many head coaches with Nike connections who move to a new school will only move to a school also signed up with Nike.

I understand. What I'm saying is that they currently have to do it behind closed doors. If we deregulated endorsement money then they could do it openly and I think the effects would be magnified.

If we deregulate endorsement money then we also should counterbalance that with a way to deter the shoe companies from getting too deeply involved with the athletes. That was my proposal.

Their involvement with coaches is another matter though. Coaches are purely professional so there's no way to regulate that contact and I can't say that there should be.

(09-27-2017 11:03 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Andy Staples writes that the NCAA's shamateurism should somehow be dismantled. I agree.

The NCAA’s Rules Gave Rise to a Generation of Pimps. Here's How It Can Clean Them Up

Quote:The fairest, most equitable solution would be to create a system that gets the money in the hands of the people with the actual skills the market values. I suggested such a system six years ago, but it remains too radical for most of the people who run college sports. For some reason, these people abhor the idea of letting the performers the market values most receive the most compensation even though that conceit governs nearly every industry in this country. They’re against capitalism for the players, but they support it wholeheartedly for themselves.

Unfortunately, that double standard is how they went from wannabe field-levelers to pimp-enablers. But since the vast majority of the people who run college sports would rather not enable people who prey on young athletes, perhaps they’ll consider a more modest proposal. I only suggested this one five years ago.

Let the players have agents. This may sound radical, but officials in several conferences have kicked around this possibility for years. College baseball players already are allowed have them. (Though the NCAA calls them “advisors.”) Simply extend that courtesy to all athletes. Chances are the agents would mostly want to sign football and basketball players, since that’s where the bulk of the money is.

A couple of things. People wrongly blame the NCAA for all of these issues. It's not the NCAA who needs to be blamed and broken up, it's the schools who deserve all of the blame, especially the P5. The P5 has the most power in the NCAA. The schools make the rules the NCAA enforces and the schools with the most power to make the rules are the P5. So if the P5 wanted real change in the NCAA they would change it. It's that simple. Put the pressure on the real people in charge.