NCAA explores compensation for names, likeness

[GTRX7]

I think there is an important point being missed here. Some folks talk about these athletes having extreme "market value," but then say it is a red herring to say they have other options, because there are no other legitimate options to college sports. I am not sure it can be both ways. Either the players themselves have extreme market value apart from the schools (in which case there would be viable options outside the college system), or it is really the schools that drive the market value and the individual athletes are largely plug-and-play.

I my opinion, the "market value" of college athletics is 95% the colleges themselves, and 5% the individual athletes. Whatever kids come to play for Tech, I will root for. Whoever goes to Alabama, Alabama fans will root for. I don't think the market for the college stars exists independently of their schools. The fact that there are not other viable options proves this. If there really was a market for players in a non top-tier professional league, those leagues would exist. They don't. That is because, why does anyone care about following a league that is not the best? The answer for college sports only lies in the ties that fans have to their schools. Independent of those schools, the "market value" of those players plummet.

If Zion had gone to Italy or played in the G-League, I can promise you 100% that I would not have cared one single iota. I cared because he played for Duke. And that was interesting.

It seems your real problem is, if certain kids really are among the best, they should be able to play in the top pro leagues. Well, that is up to those leagues, not the NCAA. If a kid doesn't think the trade-off of a scholarship and other current benefits are fair, they are in fact able to go try their luck in the free market in the G-League, Europe, China, etc. The fact that you don't like those options says more about their real free market value (or the limitations being placed on them by the pro leagues) than it does about them being under-compensated in college.

 

[dtm1997]

I think there is an important point being missed here. Some folks talk about these athletes having extreme "market value," but then say it is a red herring to say they have other options, because there are no other legitimate options to college sports. I am not sure it can be both ways. Either the players themselves have extreme market value apart from the schools (in which case there would be viable options outside the college system), or it is really the schools that drive the market value and the individual athletes are largely plug-and-play.

I my opinion, the "market value" of college athletics is 95% the colleges themselves, and 5% the individual athletes. Whatever kids come to play for Tech, I will root for. Whoever goes to Alabama, Alabama fans will root for. I don't think the market for the college stars exists independently of their schools. The fact that there are not other viable options proves this. If there really was a market for players in a non top-tier professional league, those leagues would exist. They don't. That is because, why does anyone care about following a league that is not the best? The answer for college sports only lies in the ties that fans have to their schools. Independent of those schools, the "market value" of those players plummet.

If Zion had gone to Italy or played in the G-League, I can promise you 100% that I would not have cared one single iota. I cared because he played for Duke. And that was interesting.

It seems your real problem is, if certain kids really are among the best, they should be able to play in the top pro leagues. Well, that is up to those leagues, not the NCAA. If a kid doesn't think the trade-off of a scholarship and other current benefits are fair, they are in fact able to go try their luck in the free market in the G-League, Europe, China, etc. The fact that you don't like those options says more about their real free market value (or the limitations being placed on them by the pro leagues) than it does about them being under-compensated in college.

It doesn't have to be about extreme market value at all. If every apizza place in New Haven, CT is willing to offer the top UConn women's basketball recruit free pizza for life, if they choose one to endorse, why should that be prohibited or come at the cost of a scholarship?

We jump to the "extreme" examples that reside in the men's college basketball scandal or the NBA mandating 1 & done, but the reality is it can be applicable anywhere across college athletics.

Even if players from year to year are "plug & play" with value driven by the school, why should that limit their earning potential, whether it be in cash or other goods and services?

Let them earn what could be on offer, if anything at all. Make it transparent. Tax it.

 

[lv20gt]

"Free market free market free market"

*Free market would dictate they should get less than their current scholarship*

"No No. Not that free market."

 

[crut]

Massive slippery slope. Of course it would be great for capitalism to work in this scenario. But it doesn't work with a college athletics system that has its popularity (and revenue) stemming from an interest in competing institutions!

I am all for the concept of student-athletes being able to grind to make money off their likeness, but the NCAA needs to be very cautious in its legislation or the entire system could collapse, which would end up hurting the athletes (as well as us fans) in the long haul.

 

[GTpdm]

The pragmatist in me wants to agree with @dtm1997, that the NCAA is no good at ensuring a level p(l)aying field anyway, so why not institute rules that allow players to earn extra for their market value.

The idealist in me wants to agree with @dressedcheeseside, that the offer of a college scholarship is a significant benefit that comes with an expectation of true amateurism on the part of the player, for as long as (s)he receives that benefit.

The narcissist in me wants to ageee with @GTpdm, that no matter what the outcome of this, the growing influence of money in college athletics will probably end up damping my enthusiasm for it.

 

[GTYellowJacket12]

Just bring back EA NCAA Football, if this is the way to do it then so be it.

Just a quick side comment for those that don't know. There is a way to update schedules and rosters for the old NCAA 14 Football game (PS3 & Xbox360) to reflect the current season. The people at operationsports (https://forums.operationsports.com/forums/ncaa-football/) do it every year, the roster does take weeks/months to get done (since its done by volunteers) and it's a real pain to do first since it uses some glitchy tools you have to download but once you figure it out it works flawlessly. There's even a playoff creation tutorial:

4-team playoff:


8-team playoff:


You still have to put up with old graphics which could be hard to swallow for Madden and next gen console/computer users.

Now back to the discussion at hand.

 

[GTRX7]

It doesn't have to be about extreme market value at all. If every apizza place in New Haven, CT is willing to offer the top UConn women's basketball recruit free pizza for life, if they choose one to endorse, why should that be prohibited or come at the cost of a scholarship?

We jump to the "extreme" examples that reside in the men's college basketball scandal or the NBA mandating 1 & done, but the reality is it can be applicable anywhere across college athletics.

Even if players from year to year are "plug & play" with value driven by the school, why should that limit their earning potential, whether it be in cash or other goods and services?

Let them earn what could be on offer, if anything at all. Make it transparent. Tax it.

That is not unfair. I guess I have a personal view that change would destroy parity beyond all recognition and it is hard for me to feel too bad about the more marginal cases where the kids are getting real value and are signing up to play college sports voluntarily. If they don't think it is worth it, they don't have to do it. I am sympathetic to your point though, and I agree it is not a black and white issue.

 

[dtm1997]

"Free market free market free market"

*Free market would dictate they should get less than their current scholarship*

"No No. Not that free market."

The free market actually wouldn't dictate that. The same way I suggested the schools not come out of pocket for 1 penny more than the educational costs, I would suggest they not reduce their educational costs by 1 penny either.

The benefits & earnings gathered by the free market are 100% shouldered by sources outside of a given school.

By the way, given your response, if you were to reduce the monetary educational benefits, how much would be offset by a cut of the TV revenues earned?

 

[forensicbuzz]

Unfortunately, because people are willing to cheat, it has to be a black and white issue; no grey.

 

[dtm1997]

Unfortunately, because people are willing to cheat, it has to be a black and white issue; no grey.

It's supposedly black & white now, but there's rampant cheating with no meaningful consequences.

 

[crut]

It's supposedly black & white now, but there's rampant cheating with no meaningful consequences.

Why not make the priority to make changes to help prevent cheating then?

 

[stinger 1957]

This better be thought out very thoroughly, some real big problems could come out of this IMO. I know it failed, but I wonder if we don't somehow yet see a minor league FB system. Too many kids don't really care about the education, just want the money and to get to Sunday money.

 

[dtm1997]

Why not make the priority to make changes to help prevent cheating then?

I'm certainly willing to listen. What do you propose?

 

[forensicbuzz]

It's supposedly black & white now, but there's rampant cheating with no meaningful consequences.

Because the NCAA does not do its job, we should have a free-for-all? A system like this will absolutely kill college football as we know it. In my opinion, that's not a good thing.

 

[dtm1997]

Because the NCAA does not do its job, we should have a free-for-all? A system like this will absolutely kill college football as we know it. In my opinion, that's not a good thing.

What if it bifurcated the semi-pro teams from the more traditional teams in to reorganized regional conferences and the equity people are calling for is the equilibrium result?

It'll never happen because TV, but what if that was the result?

Here's a question for everyone based on a good, valid point you made - what will it take for the NCAA to actually do its job?

By the way, to your question on the free for all, I say yes. Two reasons - I'd have no qualms about the system burning to the ground and I'm in favor of individuals having the opportunity to realize their full earnings potential available to them.

 

[lv20gt]

The free market actually wouldn't dictate that.

You do realize that is the exact logic the post was mocking right?

You're all about free market as long as it's not the free market saying they aren't worth the scholarship they are getting.

 

[dtm1997]

You do realize that is the exact logic the post was mocking right?

You're all about free market as long as it's not the free market saying they aren't worth the scholarship they are getting.

If the free market of universities says an individual isn't worth receiving anan athletic scholarship, then they're not a student athlete in the first place because they're not on scholarship.

Agreed. That's a free market activity.

My underlying stance is if individuals have earned scholarships as a student athlete, then the schools are responsible for nothing more and nothing less than a reasonably uniform coverage of the educational component.

External sources, separate from a school's monetary resources, would then compete and decide what additional value they're willing to offer in support of a scholarship earning student athlete going to the school they're supporting. It could be $0 or $1,000,000 or free pizza for 4 years.

Now that I've tried to be as clear as possible, it's also possible I misinterpreted something you said earlier. Did you say that a student athlete's scholarship funding should be reduced or eliminated in an amount commensurate with what the free market will provide them for going to a given school? That's how I interpreted your prior statement that's driving your efforts to mock me.

 

[lv20gt]

Taking a scholarship is basically akin to sign an exclusivity agreement. You get tuition, room and board, and the benefits, and you agree not to seek other avenues for making money. You are suggesting that they just drop the exclusivity part. The problem is that the purpose of the exclusivity part is to try and ensure a somewhat level playing field for all. Get rid of that and all you have is a less interesting NBA with even bigger imbalance.

On top of that most of the "free market" compensation will still be intrinsically tied to the university. Those "external sources" are still entirely dependent on a connection with the school. SAs wouldn't get free pizza just for being themselves. They'd get it for being a player for the local college. The external revenue would be revenue based on the relationship between the athlete and the school. Not just the athlete.

The fact is, for basketball and football, the limits imposed by the pro sports greatly diminishes the actual free market value of SAs during the years they aren't eligible to the point where a college scholarship is fair compensation. Could SAs make more? Probably. Can they make more without the association with a college? For most the answer is probably not.

 

[MidtownJacket]

This is a great point in my opinion.

The Platform of College Athletics is what creates the wealth that we are talking about here. If you don't believe that, then take a look at the Arena and Indoor Leagues that have sputtered out over the last few years. The kids are extremely talented, but part of the agreement for going to the school, getting the coaching / development / meal plans / housing / education is that you make the school money and not the other way around. This does certainly mean that for a handful of kids (Like a Zion Williams) their earning abilities are delayed but I would maintain that they are also magnified with their association with the school / platform of NCAA Sports. What is the last shoe deal or sponsor deal you can recall for a GLeague player?

Taking a scholarship is basically akin to sign an exclusivity agreement. You get tuition, room and board, and the benefits, and you agree not to seek other avenues for making money. You are suggesting that they just drop the exclusivity part. The problem is that the purpose of the exclusivity part is to try and ensure a somewhat level playing field for all. Get rid of that and all you have is a less interesting NBA with even bigger imbalance.

On top of that most of the "free market" compensation will still be intrinsically tied to the university. Those "external sources" are still entirely dependent on a connection with the school. SAs wouldn't get free pizza just for being themselves. They'd get it for being a player for the local college. The external revenue would be revenue based on the relationship between the athlete and the school. Not just the athlete.

The fact is, for basketball and football, the limits imposed by the pro sports greatly diminishes the actual free market value of SAs during the years they aren't eligible to the point where a college scholarship is fair compensation. Could SAs make more? Probably. Can they make more without the association with a college? For most the answer is probably not.

 

[Milwaukee]

Just a quick side comment for those that don't know. There is a way to update schedules and rosters for the old NCAA 14 Football game (PS3 & Xbox360) to reflect the current season. The people at operationsports (https://forums.operationsports.com/forums/ncaa-football/) do it every year, the roster does take weeks/months to get done (since its done by volunteers) and it's a real pain to do first since it uses some glitchy tools you have to download but once you figure it out it works flawlessly. There's even a playoff creation tutorial:

4-team playoff:


8-team playoff:


You still have to put up with old graphics which could be hard to swallow for Madden and next gen console/computer users.

Now back to the discussion at hand.

I use this currently, also the ps2 modded updated pc version is even better. OperationSports rocks.

I still play 06 regularly, we are unstoppable in that version. 07 we're loaded too; but 06 is almost not even fair because Eric Henderson can't be blocked and Calvin can't be covered. 07 version Calvin and Reggie are better but Dline took a hit.