Arrests coming due to college bball kickbacks

[dtm1997]

Meanwhile there is the “illusion” of fair play currently.

I am on the fence with paying players but, ****s already dirty so why not? I don’t know why I don’t like the thought of paying players but I don’t. At least not in that scenario. Should we up the stipend given to athletes? Sure.

The nuance I'd propose is that I'm not saying "pay players". I am saying let players earn their market value.

Not all players will have a market value or the same market value. Compensation earned to achieve market value can come from any number of sources that are not the school directly.

Once earned, that compensation should be fully disclosed and treated like taxable income.

 

[kg01]

The nuance I'd propose is that I'm not saying "pay players". I am saying let players earn their market value.

Not all players will have a market value or the same market value. Compensation earned to achieve market value can come from any number of sources that are not the school directly.

Once earned, that compensation should be fully disclosed and treated like taxable income.

But, but all student athletes are the same and should have the same benefits and opportunities ... *harrumph*

I'm being facetious, however, you can bet your bottom dollar that's going to be the response. Folks aren't prepared to admit that the starting QB at Bama just might have more marketing potential than the backup left guard at Podunk State Tech or the starting center for the women's bball team at Arizona A&M.

Your first hurdle is in getting people to let go of this notion that all student-athletes deserve equal treatment. Good luck with that, brosephus.

 

[ESPNjacket]

So, no evidence of any kind linking K, Capel or anyone else at Duke to this mess.

There was no evidence linking Pitino to the strippers either. Free Rickie!

Buffers.

Thanks for confirming my prior post.

You're against it because you know GT can't keep up. Who's fault would that be in my scenario? Ours, as a fan base, for not being ready nor willing to step up to the plate.

I think you are underestimating the influence of the "amateurism" narrative. The NCAA isn't good at much but it is good at selling the idea that the only way college sports can work is through scholarships.

Remember a few years ago when the stipends were passed? There were people threatening to never buy tickets again if the players got a couple hundred dollars per month for miscellaneous expenses, despite what was called laundry money being the norm back in the '50s.

That narrative is strong. Most people don't realize that the NCAA started using the "student-athlete" term in the '50s in order for the members to avoid the potential of having to pay workman's compensation. This is straight from Walter Byers.

 

[dtm1997]

There was no evidence linking Pitino to the strippers either. Free Rickie!

Buffers.


I think you are underestimating the influence of the "amateurism" narrative. The NCAA isn't good at much but it is good at selling the idea that the only way college sports can work is through scholarships.

Remember a few years ago when the stipends were passed? There were people threatening to never buy tickets again if the players got a couple hundred dollars per month for miscellaneous expenses, despite what was called laundry money being the norm back in the '50s.

That narrative is strong. Most people don't realize that the NCAA started using the "student-athlete" term in the '50s in order for the members to avoid the potential of having to pay workman's compensation. This is straight from Walter Byers.

I'm not convinced the "amateurism" narrative won't win out. I'm just saying it's a total load of horse **** and am willing to say it.

 

[kg01]

There was no evidence linking Pitino to the strippers either. Free Rickie!

Buffers.


I think you are underestimating the influence of the "amateurism" narrative. The NCAA isn't good at much but it is good at selling the idea that the only way college sports can work is through scholarships.

Remember a few years ago when the stipends were passed? There were people threatening to never buy tickets again if the players got a couple hundred dollars per month for miscellaneous expenses, despite what was called laundry money being the norm back in the '50s.

That narrative is strong. Most people don't realize that the NCAA started using the "student-athlete" term in the '50s in order for the members to avoid the potential of having to pay workman's compensation. This is straight from Walter Byers.

Preach. Yours is basically the Harvard-educated version of what I was trying to say.

 

[jeffgt14]

Thanks for confirming my prior post.

You're against it because you know GT can't keep up. Who's fault would that be in my scenario? Ours, as a fan base, for not being ready nor willing to step up to the plate.

Honestly I could care less about keeping up. We can’t keep up now. I just think we’re saying a free education isn’t worth anything and that the players are only coming to play ball and not for school (which is the case). The only reason there isn’t a minor league for the NFL is because the money is already in the college game. If you want to utilize the Universities and turn it into a minor league, falsely utilizing the concept of a “Student Athlete”, then don’t even bother requiring players to meet certain academic standards or even go to class because it’s just a bunch of BS at that point.

Quit giving athletes a scholarship to play a sport. Give them, per year, whatever amount of money they get for scholarships, tuition, housing, etc. and let them decide if they want to pocket it and just play football, or pay their own way to get an education along with playing football. The real student athletes will be eligible for their own individual academic scholarships and could pocket their money along with getting a free (or cheaper) education.

 

[dtm1997]

Honestly I could care less about keeping up. We can’t keep up now. I just think we’re saying a free education isn’t worth anything and that the players are only coming to play ball and not for school (which is the case). The only reason there isn’t a minor league for the NFL is because the money is already in the college game. If you want to utilize the Universities and turn it into a minor league, falsely utilizing the concept of a “Student Athlete”, then don’t even bother requiring players to meet certain academic standards or even go to class because it’s just a bunch of BS at that point.

Quit giving athletes a scholarship to play a sport. Give them, per year, whatever amount of money they get for scholarships, tuition, housing, etc. and let them decide if they want to pocket it and just play football, or pay their own way to get an education along with playing football. The real student athletes will be eligible for their own individual academic scholarships and could pocket their money along with getting a free (or cheaper) education.

You're right. We can't keep up right now. We can't keep up because, to a degree, we choose to not keep up. Part of that is a sheer numbers game of our fan base/alumni base. Part of it is a lack of interest & willingness to kick in. Part of that, in my opinion, is a preference to whine & be scared, rather than put our wallets on the table.

I'm not in favor of what you're saying, but it's certainly a valid idea.

I do think you're trying to counter my statement of letting student athletes, who have a clear market value beyond their scholarship value, earn said market value by trying to eliminate academic requirements. I haven't called for that, but I can play along. We can start with that.

That said, you're still making a pretty bad assumption that each student-athlete is only worth the monetary value of a scholarship when in fact that's not the case & not what I'm saying at all.

Let schools recruit kids. Let schools pay for the kids to go to school and work towards getting a diploma, until such time a pro sports career may make sense. Let the kids who generate a market value in excess of just the scholarship earn their market value, which, by the way, comes from the market, not the school. The market can be boosters, agents, sponsorships, etc.

 

[H-Wade]

So basically this will turn into the Premier League over in Europe and the same teams with the most money aka boosters will be at the top each year. That sounds sooo great...

Even if we did have boosters offering cash to players, the UGAs of the world could just offer more to keep them off of our team. Might as well let the big boys form their own little league of 10 or so teams or else nobody will watch anymore.

 

[dtm1997]

So basically this will turn into the Premier League over in Europe and the same teams with the most money aka boosters will be at the top each year. That sounds sooo great...

Even if we did have boosters offering cash to players, the UGAs of the world could just offer more to keep them off of our team. Might as well let the big boys form their own little league of 10 or so teams or else nobody will watch anymore.

Again. Another valid idea. Doesn't mean that the players at the lower level won't have a market value beyond a scholarship. Just means there will be players of lower value in that lower level of play. Shouldn't preclude them from earning.

 

[kg01]

I hope the NBA builds the GLeague up so it basically replaces the dirty portion of the UNCAA thus leaving the remaining real students to compete against each other.

Hate to steal @dtm1997 's thunder (well, I don't hate to steal his thunder if I'm being honest) but the only cure for what ails the process is to carve out the issue. Let kids that are good enough to play for money ... play for money in the GLeague or overseas.

Seems the NBA is heading that way.

ETA: I should add that the UNCAA will take a huge hit money-wise but (1) that's likely on the horizon anyway and (2) the NBA doesn't/shouldn't care.

 

[dtm1997]

I hope the NBA builds the GLeague up so it basically replaces the dirty portion of the UNCAA thus leaving the remaining real students to compete against each other.

Hate to steal @dtm1997 's thunder (well, I don't hate to steal his thunder if I'm being honest) but the only cure for what ails the process is to carve out the issue. Let kids that are good enough to play for money ... play for money in the GLeague or overseas.

Seems the NBA is heading that way.

ETA: I should add that the UNCAA will take a huge hit money-wise but (1) that's likely on the horizon anyway and (2) the NBA doesn't/shouldn't care.

I do think the NBA is gearing up to make the G-League a traditional minor league that will take in not only the upper tier kids, but that next level as well. Say the top 35-50 kids each year get the chance to go to the G-League. I also think the G-League would have a responsibility to put those kids through some basic post-grad life skills course, but that's me being idealistic.

That said, it doesn't mean the best kids remaining won't have a market value. Gotta still incorporate an ability for a kid to earn.

 

[kg01]

I do think the NBA is gearing up to make the G-League a traditional minor league that will take in not only the upper tier kids, but that next level as well. Say the top 35-50 kids each year get the chance to go to the G-League. I also think the G-League would have a responsibility to put those kids through some basic post-grad life skills course, but that's me being idealistic.

That said, it doesn't mean the best kids remaining won't have a market value. Gotta still incorporate an ability for a kid to earn.

Disagree with the post-grad life stuff unless, instead of the gleague, you're talking more the European club style league or w/e which I've also heard an NBA guy or two favoring as opposed to a traditional minor league set-up a la MLB.

 

[forensicbuzz]

The nuance I'd propose is that I'm not saying "pay players". I am saying let players earn their market value.

Not all players will have a market value or the same market value. Compensation earned to achieve market value can come from any number of sources that are not the school directly.

Once earned, that compensation should be fully disclosed and treated like taxable income.

The problem is that they're not only capitalizing on their own name, they're also capitalizing on the brand of the University.

To your question about our "fear," if we remove the amateurism nature of the players, then let's just remove scholarship limits. We all know scholly limits are there to prevent the schools with deeper pockets (eh em, Alabama) from lining their benches to prevent players from going to other teams. That was one of the major reasons Bobby Dodd got out of the SEC (whether he admitted it or not). So, what you would be doing is creating a different arms race because some schools are going to be able to commit much greater "booster" resources than others.

 

[MWBATL]

This is clearly not just a basketball problem. It is definitely an issue in football as well.

This is also clearly heavily impacted by the US Government and issues such a Title IX.

I think I will just watch to see how ESPN and CNN play with this issue....one preferred group (minority) vs another (female). Popcorn anyone?

 

[jeffgt14]

You're right. We can't keep up right now. We can't keep up because, to a degree, we choose to not keep up. Part of that is a sheer numbers game of our fan base/alumni base. Part of it is a lack of interest & willingness to kick in. Part of that, in my opinion, is a preference to whine & be scared, rather than put our wallets on the table.

I'm not in favor of what you're saying, but it's certainly a valid idea.

I do think you're trying to counter my statement of letting student athletes, who have a clear market value beyond their scholarship value, earn said market value by trying to eliminate academic requirements. I haven't called for that, but I can play along. We can start with that.

That said, you're still making a pretty bad assumption that each student-athlete is only worth the monetary value of a scholarship when in fact that's not the case & not what I'm saying at all.

Let schools recruit kids. Let schools pay for the kids to go to school and work towards getting a diploma, until such time a pro sports career may make sense. Let the kids who generate a market value in excess of just the scholarship earn their market value, which, by the way, comes from the market, not the school. The market can be boosters, agents, sponsorships, etc.

Of course there are some that have a market value over other players but this is college football. It’s not a minor league and even if it was a minor league, all the schools should have a “salary cap” to manage their rosters. Of course the players with higher market value in these scenarios could gain additional money from endorsements and such.

The question to me is, how much value would these kids have if they weren't tied to a university? Certainly seems to me that if players are getting paid, a large portion of their market value is directly tied to the school for reasons other than just that school's single sport. If the University of Alabama didn't have a football team, would the G-League Alabama Crimson Tide generate the same revenue out of 129 other G-League teams?

 

[MWBATL]

If the University of Alabama didn't have a football team, would the G-League Alabama Crimson Tide generate the same revenue out of 129 other G-League teams?

They'd have to be The Tuscloosa Red Storm....there is NO ay the university uses the nicknames without a huge payoff.....and then watch the revenues shrink like an old man's d........uhhh, bank account.

 

[dtm1997]

Disagree with the post-grad life stuff unless, instead of the gleague, you're talking more the European club style league or w/e which I've also heard an NBA guy or two favoring as opposed to a traditional minor league set-up a la MLB.

I'm really thinking something more in line with seminars or day long classes, not dissimilar from what rookies get when they enter the league post-draft. Also, why do you care about how the NBA spends its money?

I do like the regional academy concept that Seth Greenberg of all people suggested. Identify potential pros early. Put them in an academy where they train & go to school, paid for by USA basketball & the NBA. If they're good enough to go pro, they go. If they wash out, they're still college eligible.

 

[kg01]

I'm really thinking something more in line with seminars or day long classes, not dissimilar from what rookies get when they enter the league post-draft. Also, why do you care about how the NBA spends its money?

I do like the regional academy concept that Seth Greenberg of all people suggested. Identify potential pros early. Put them in an academy where they train & go to school, paid for by USA basketball & the NBA. If they're good enough to go pro, they go. If they wash out, they're still college eligible.

I don't care how they spend their money. I just don't think these guys need babysitting. The presumption is, if you make that leap, you better be ready. If not ready, got to college bro.

Also, that idea from your friend Seth is good enough that I assume he stole it from someone. I like it as well.

 

[dtm1997]

Of course there are some that have a market value over other players but this is college football. It’s not a minor league and even if it was a minor league, all the schools should have a “salary cap” to manage their rosters. Of course the players with higher market value in these scenarios could gain additional money from endorsements and such.

The question to me is, how much value would these kids have if they weren't tied to a university? Certainly seems to me that if players are getting paid, a large portion of their market value is directly tied to the school for reasons other than just that school's single sport. If the University of Alabama didn't have a football team, would the G-League Alabama Crimson Tide generate the same revenue out of 129 other G-League teams?

I believe there's still a disconnect between what I'm saying and what you're thinking of.

The schools all start at a baseline level - scholarship, room & board, stipend, etc.

It's what comes from outside of the schools that's fair game.

Also, these kids are clearly establishing a level of market value before being tied to a single school. Could their market value increase because they go to a certain school? Absolutely. Are those schools the sole factor for driving market value? Not at all.

Here's a thought - what if the best offer for market value is something that results in both the player & school getting paid? What if shoe companies bid on a kid to steer him to a set of schools and the schools got bonuses from their shoe companies based on the kid becoming more marketable through performance? Does this incentivize all parties? Yep. Does this add increased aspects of professional characteristics to college sports? In line with your original comment? Would seem to.



The bottom line is that there is money out there willing to find its way in to these kids pockets. Would you rather it be out in the open or would you rather it be against the "rules" & happen anyway so folks can have a bull**** platform to admonish rule breakers?

Bags aren't going away.

 

[RamblinRed]

Here is Mark Bradley's column from a couple of days ago.

https://www.myajc.com/blog/mark-bra...won-easy-but-can-done/2xgVujxFVKtp72r78J1fkJ/

He has a new one today that talks about the new Yahoo article as well.