NCAA explores compensation for names, likeness

[dtm1997]

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.

Good arguments here, so let me take these in order...

1) I'm not sure the exclusivity agreement concept is accurate, but I see where you're going. Quid pro quo - we're giving you this educational package, you're giving us your hard work in the class room and on the field. You're pointing out the portion about not seeking other earnings, but the way a law can be changed based on the social mores of a society, that is easily changed based on prevailing thought. I can appreciate your desire for a somewhat level playing field, but does that even exist in football & basketball at this point? In my opinion, it doesn't.

2) This happens to be a really good point. It doesn't change the fact that someone may very well be willing to provide incentive regardless who sits in a particular spot or that spot may earn nothing. I like to use the free pizza example because it's kind of dumb and innocuous compared to the rampant cheating in football and men's hoops. Using the free pizza example, let's say the State Street Papa John's was willing to give free pizza annually to whoever was on the GT women's volleyball team in exchange for participating in an annual production of a poster in-uniform. Team members can opt out, but wouldn't get the free pizza. GT has approved use of trademarks because Papa John's is a sponsor. I think I've described a situation and I ask where's the harm? Why should that be prohibited?

3) Fair points. I'm absolutely in favor of the NBA eliminating 1 & done, which will skim the top layer off where a lot of the cheating goes on. The next level kids may be called 5* in name, but if their value goes down to or near $0 and all they get is a scholarship, then fine by me. If the market says they should only get $25,000 instead of $250,000, also fine by me. Regardless of what they do or don't get, I'm in favor of them being afforded that opportunity and the external sources, as I call them, being allowed to put forth what they're willing to offer.

Separately, a single data point is not a trend, nor is this enough observations for a sample size, but I found this interesting. We can all only hope the ACC Network starts creeping us towards the old B1G numbers so it can be reinvested in our GTAA programs.

 

[bigtechfan67]

Hopefully NCAA getting back into video games

Sent from my E6810 using Tapatalk

 

[dtm1997]

Hopefully NCAA getting back into video games

Sent from my E6810 using Tapatalk

Is anyone old enough to remember Bill Walsh College Football? I used to use Charlie Ward to run all over teams.

 

[Milwaukee]

Is anyone old enough to remember Bill Walsh College Football? I used to use Charlie Ward to run all over teams.

I have a pc modded version of Tecmo Super Bowl with 2008 college football teams. Nesbitt is like Bo Jackson.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Good arguments here, so let me take these in order...

1) I'm not sure the exclusivity agreement concept is accurate, but I see where you're going. Quid pro quo - we're giving you this educational package, you're giving us your hard work in the class room and on the field. You're pointing out the portion about not seeking other earnings, but the way a law can be changed based on the social mores of a society, that is easily changed based on prevailing thought. I can appreciate your desire for a somewhat level playing field, but does that even exist in football & basketball at this point? In my opinion, it doesn't.

2) This happens to be a really good point. It doesn't change the fact that someone may very well be willing to provide incentive regardless who sits in a particular spot or that spot may earn nothing. I like to use the free pizza example because it's kind of dumb and innocuous compared to the rampant cheating in football and men's hoops. Using the free pizza example, let's say the State Street Papa John's was willing to give free pizza annually to whoever was on the GT women's volleyball team in exchange for participating in an annual production of a poster in-uniform. Team members can opt out, but wouldn't get the free pizza. GT has approved use of trademarks because Papa John's is a sponsor. I think I've described a situation and I ask where's the harm? Why should that be prohibited?

3) Fair points. I'm absolutely in favor of the NBA eliminating 1 & done, which will skim the top layer off where a lot of the cheating goes on. The next level kids may be called 5* in name, but if their value goes down to or near $0 and all they get is a scholarship, then fine by me. If the market says they should only get $25,000 instead of $250,000, also fine by me. Regardless of what they do or don't get, I'm in favor of them being afforded that opportunity and the external sources, as I call them, being allowed to put forth what they're willing to offer.

Separately, a single data point is not a trend, nor is this enough observations for a sample size, but I found this interesting. We can all only hope the ACC Network starts creeping us towards the old B1G numbers so it can be reinvested in our GTAA programs.

With respect to point 1, I agree the current system has inequities but mostly because the rules that guard against it are not enforced. I don’t think that is sound reasoning to make rules changes that increase the inequities. The opposite is true, any rule changes should be designed to create a more level playing field not tilt it further in the opposite direction.

 

[Backstreetbuzz]

Zero restrictions on kids going pro. If a kid wants to go to the NBA after the 8th grade, let him go. College should be kept the way it is. It would be an option. You can go to college or you can play for money. Your option.

 

[dtm1997]

With respect to point 1, I agree the current system has inequities but mostly because the rules that guard against it are not enforced. I don’t think that is sound reasoning to make rules changes that increase the inequities. The opposite is true, any rule changes should be designed to create a more level playing field not tilt it further in the opposite direction.

I have a question for you - are you against overcapitalized schools having a legal advantage or are you against student-athletes having the opportunity for incremental earnings or both?

The second could be the result of the first, but isn't necessarily.

I think our disagreement resides in you favoring school rights, in a quest for a level playing field, whereas I'm in favor of student-athlete rights, in a quest for them to have the ability to earn $0 to an upper bound determined by the market. We may be fundamentally opposed and it's a pretty reasonable disagreement for us to have.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I have a question for you - are you against overcapitalized schools having a legal advantage or are you against student-athletes having the opportunity for incremental earnings or both?

The second could be the result of the first, but isn't necessarily.

I think our disagreement resides in you favoring school rights, in a quest for a level playing field, whereas I'm in favor of student-athlete rights, in a quest for them to have the ability to earn $0 to an upper bound determined by the market. We may be fundamentally opposed and it's a pretty reasonable disagreement for us to have.

I believe the SA's agree to give up the right to earn market determined money on the basis of their sports identity when the agree to the terms of their scholarship. Do I think that should be a part of the scholarship agreement? Not necessarily, but I do think that taking away these restrictions would definitely increase the already unlevel playing field in college sports.

 

[dtm1997]

I believe the SA's agree to give up the right to earn market determined money on the basis of their sports identity when the agree to the terms of their scholarship. Do I think that should be a part of the scholarship agreement? Not necessarily, but I do think that taking away these restrictions would definitely increase the already unlevel playing field in college sports.

In terms of rules, we're in agreement. As structured today, they absolutely do give up rights and they must follow that.

That said, you take away these restrictions, how would you increase the already unlevel playing field? Would the schools currently recruiting at the highest levels be displaced? It would be more unfair because their bags would be revealed? They'd get the same players they're already getting, but pay them more because it's allowed and we'd know how much it is?

Change the rules and every school's support system now has the responsibility on themselves to amass the resources and deploy them to compete at the highest levels. It's darwinistic, but everyone has a chance to build towards the same thing transparently.

I ask & say these things knowing full well that GT is a school that would be effed under this scenario, but that would be GT's problem to navigate.

 

[crut]

I have a question for you - are you against overcapitalized schools having a legal advantage or are you against student-athletes having the opportunity for incremental earnings or both?

The second could be the result of the first, but isn't necessarily.

I think our disagreement resides in you favoring school rights, in a quest for a level playing field, whereas I'm in favor of student-athlete rights, in a quest for them to have the ability to earn $0 to an upper bound determined by the market. We may be fundamentally opposed and it's a pretty reasonable disagreement for us to have.

I feel like there are so many issues with your views that you aren't seeing. You say you're in favor of student-athlete rights.

1. They aren't even rights. Being paid would be a privilege or benefit. The NCAA has set up a system that doesn't prevent them from choosing any other route in life. This route provides them with significant benefits, but restricts their capabilities outside of that. Right now, the benefits provided by the NCAA are worth more than any other route for the vast majority of athletes, and that is why they take that route. So the whole battling for "rights" thing isn't even a thing.

2. If allowing the system to pay them leads to schools becoming more and more aggressive to be competitive, where they basically aren't attending school anymore, they are just "athletes" and not "student-athletes".

Now also, you say you are so in favor of allowing the free market to dictate benefits, that it is worth it even if it destroys the system.

1. In what world, outside of Wolf on Wall Street, is this beneficial at all? Destroying the system so less than 1% of the entire NCAA system can get paid even if it means benefits for the other 99+% get ruined. We live in a capitalist market that aims to incentivize talent and hard work, but there are still lots of restrictions to prevent complete domination of the economy by the elite.

2. Once the system is destroyed, minor leagues would pop up surely, and some might survive this time with people looking for teams to cheer on. But without the institutional infrastructure that prop up the market, the overall interest across the board will be massively less. Therefore, lobbying for this to happen would be to promote economic regression. And for the sake of what? That a highly beneficial system for schools, athletes, and fans alike isn't good enough because it isn't able to distribute its assets perfectly and the organization hasn't figured out how to deter indirect cheating?

[QUOTE="dtm1997, post: 580173, member: 572"
I ask & say these things knowing full well that GT is a school that would be effed under this scenario, but that would be GT's problem to navigate.[/QUOTE]
You say this like the GTAA and GT are the same thing. GTAA's ability to react to massive changes like athlete compensation is dependent on the school. Can they force the school to double in size so that they will have a similar donor base to other schools? No. Can they force the school to add worthless majors so that elite athletes who don't want to play school will come? No.

You seem very fixated on the NCAA needing to be fully capitalistic, but even though we have a capitalist society, every entity within that society doesn't have to be capitalist itself. The call for the NCAA to be capitalist is like saying all engineering firms should work on a performance scale for pay, with no base pay. That's not how those institutions need to operate in a capitalist society. That would just cause complete chaos and ruin lives.

Overall, I think the idea that NCAA assets get perfectly distributed is fantastic. But, it's utopian in the sense that it isn't plausible. You either offer them equal benefits like now, offer money in some equitable way that doesn't align with the market, or you open the floodgates and the system starts to crash and burn - ultimately hurting everyone involved.

 

[awbuzz]

[QUOTE="GTpdm, post: 579612, member: 1451" ... the growing influence of money in college athletics will probably end up damping my enthusiasm for it.[/QUOTE]

This +1

 

[takethepoints]

You seem very fixated on the NCAA needing to be fully capitalistic, but even though we have a capitalist society, every entity within that society doesn't have to be capitalist itself. The call for the NCAA to be capitalist is like saying all engineering firms should work on a performance scale for pay, with no base pay. That's not how those institutions need to operate in a capitalist society. That would just cause complete chaos and ruin lives.

The best blog post EVAH addresses this viewpoint:

https://examinedlife.typepad.com/johnbelle/2004/03/if_wishes_were_.html

Belle Waring (she's from South Carolina, btw) is the bomb!

 

[crut]

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

Never got around to responding to this... And I don't have specific solutions, but maybe just some food for thought can help the conversation. Feel free to tear these ideas apart:

Problem 1: Incidents where a school/coach/etc has been found (with significant evidence) to have broken NCAA rules are not getting punished
I have a general understanding of NCAA investigations that have been going on, but certainly not all the specifics. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems in some of the latest cases schools have lawyered up and the NCAA appears to back down. Why is that? The conspiracy theorists would argue that it's because they don't want to damage their money making schools. But (as an example) LSU basketball getting totally wrecked by the NCAA isn't going to lessen the amount of money the NCAA makes. Almost all their money comes from the NCAA Basketball Tournament. LSU not being in that wouldn't impact it a bit, so I'm skeptical of that explanation. Maybe they don't have money in the budget to fight back? Who knows.

General Solution: Create significantly more transparancy on regulations and rulings. Why, specifically, did GT get 'X' penalty for this violation, but LSU got no penalty for 'Y' violation? Create an agreement between schools that a) these are the types of violations, b) these are the specific penalties when you commit that type of violation, and c) This is a report showing after you committed a violation, why it fell under whatever type of violation
They already have similar metrics, but the fact that no one has any clue how it works and that there is no consistency means there could be significant improvements to this system.



Problem 2: Schools aren't afraid of the NCAA's punishments
Right now, cheating is more of a reward to many programs than the idea of whatever punishment will come from the NCAA for that violation. From my eyes, the main reason is money. Win championships, and you will make bank, so who cares if you get caught breaking the rules trying... it is worth the attempt.

General Solution: Make the idea of facing consequences from the NCAA scarier. Revoked wins, championships, and scholarships isn't all that scary. Money is scary. Maybe the schools come together and sign an agreement allowing the NCAA to impose fines. These fines would vary based on the severity of an infraction. Also, to maintain the NCAA as a non-profit, these earnings can be doled out to rivals schools evenly...maybe by conference. So if FSU gets caught cheating and gets fined $1 million, that gets split evenly between the other ACC schools.



Problem 3: From the super-elite athlete's perspective, allowing schools to cheat is more rewarding than not.
In the current system, the 1% of athletes who get paid SIGNIFICANTLY under the table are rewarded for allowing that system to take place.

General Solution: Haven't thought of a great idea for solving this problem yet, but just as a general premise the NCAA needs to find a way to make it better for these athletes to discourage the systematic cheating. An off-the-wall idea is to reward athletes who provide evidence they were offered or given money. This could combine with the idea for problem 2 in the following scenario: Athlete 'X' is given $200,000. NCAA program offers $200,000 to athlete upon graduation from an accredited school (not the one that provided the impermissible benefits) and then fines the school the same amount to fund that, and then throws sanctions on top of it (less scholarships allowed, revoked wins, etc). In this scenario, the school's ability to sway a recruit with money is less powerful. Schools are doubly discouraged from trying to pay athletes (run the risk of not getting the athlete, and also have a monetary+other punishment).

 

[Northeast Stinger]

That's where we differ, I don't believe the free market model applies in this situation. There's already disparity due to financial differences among schools/athletic departments, this would only further the divide. I think the NCAA should strive to increase parity rather than decrease it. That would definitely benefit GT and a lot of other schools less financially dominant.

I had to read a little Adam Smith in my past life and I am struck by how much he sounds like a socialist by today's standards. Long story short, free market only works as long as the playing field is even. Unfair advantages completely undermine a free market. Transparency will only happen with strong regulation and those who already have a monopoly have to be broken up.

I have no idea how this plays out with college athletics.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Good arguments here, so let me take these in order...

1) I'm not sure the exclusivity agreement concept is accurate, but I see where you're going. Quid pro quo - we're giving you this educational package, you're giving us your hard work in the class room and on the field. You're pointing out the portion about not seeking other earnings, but the way a law can be changed based on the social mores of a society, that is easily changed based on prevailing thought. I can appreciate your desire for a somewhat level playing field, but does that even exist in football & basketball at this point? In my opinion, it doesn't.

2) This happens to be a really good point. It doesn't change the fact that someone may very well be willing to provide incentive regardless who sits in a particular spot or that spot may earn nothing. I like to use the free pizza example because it's kind of dumb and innocuous compared to the rampant cheating in football and men's hoops. Using the free pizza example, let's say the State Street Papa John's was willing to give free pizza annually to whoever was on the GT women's volleyball team in exchange for participating in an annual production of a poster in-uniform. Team members can opt out, but wouldn't get the free pizza. GT has approved use of trademarks because Papa John's is a sponsor. I think I've described a situation and I ask where's the harm? Why should that be prohibited?

I want to understand the analogy a little further.

Does Papa John's pay Tech for the use of their women's team? Or is that part of the sponsorship contract?