NIL in CBB

TampaBuzz

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
683
This is laughably ignorant. There is no will to produce or improve in an environment where there are no winners or losers. This is why communism always has and always will fail. People will always do what they are incentivized to do. If the are incentivized to do nothing to achieve the same status as everyone else then they will do nothing. If they are incentivized to outperform their peers to receive greater status, then they will strive to excel beyond all others. The opportunity to transform oneself from winner to loser or to elevate one's position in a merit based system, whether that is capitalism in economics or in a non union workforce, was the driving force behind the industrial revolution, which catapulted our country beyond all others. The desire to achieve individual greatness, regardless if someone is starting out below someone else, is the force by which virtually all productivity and achievement is attained.
I get the point you are trying to make, but are you sure that government supported "robber barons" and the business/labor practices of the industrial revolution are the best example of the point you are trying to make?
 

cpf2001

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
454
This is laughably ignorant. There is no will to produce or improve in an environment where there are no winners or losers. This is why communism always has and always will fail. People will always do what they are incentivized to do. If the are incentivized to do nothing to achieve the same status as everyone else then they will do nothing. If they are incentivized to outperform their peers to receive greater status, then they will strive to excel beyond all others. The opportunity to transform oneself from winner to loser or to elevate one's position in a merit based system, whether that is capitalism in economics or in a non union workforce, was the driving force behind the industrial revolution, which catapulted our country beyond all others. The desire to achieve individual greatness, regardless if someone is starting out below someone else, is the force by which virtually all productivity and achievement is attained.
You talk about the will to perform not being there without competition, without winners or losers. But nobody's proposing some sort of "every team wins half their games!" system. The post you’re replying to just said it can also be destroyed in other conditions, such as monopolistic/oligarchist ones where you don’t appear to matter and aren’t recognized.

Sports are different from business competition. You're there because of merit, sure, but you're also limited because most of the time, you can't transform yourself to Lebron levels of merit. And if your teammate is getting a million bucks while you're getting a small stipend, nobody should be surprised if the team chemistry rots and you say "screw it, this isn't worth it to me."

And at a program/fanbase level - you're trying to transform yourself from a loser to a winner, but the winners are spending $$$$$ to try to prevent that such as by poaching all your most promising players in the transfer portal - at some point... why bother?
 
Last edited:

leatherneckjacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,230
Location
Atlanta, GA
You talk about the will to perform not being there without competition, without winners or losers. But nobody's proposing some sort of "every team wins half their games!" system. The post you’re replying to just said it can also be destroyed in other conditions, such as monopolistic/oligarchist ones where you don’t appear to matter and aren’t recognized.

Sports are different from business competition. You're there because of merit, sure, but you're also limited because most of the time, you can't transform yourself to Lebron levels of merit. And if your teammate is getting a million bucks while you're getting a small stipend, nobody should be surprised if the team chemistry rots and you say "screw it, this isn't worth it to me."

And at a program/fanbase level - you're trying to transform yourself from a loser to a winner, but the winners are spending $$$$$ to try to prevent that such as by poaching all your most promising players in the transfer portal - at some point... why bother?
Anyone who is part of sports team, professional or otherwise, would be booted from their team if they refuse to produce at their best level out of jealousy because someone is better or makes more than them. Team chemistry can turn on a variety of reason, but pay disparity is not usually one of them. Disparity in pay in sports is not something new. Babe Ruth made more than the rest of the team combined and the Yankees chemistry in the 20s and 30s was just fine. Do you really think the lowest paid Yankees are not going to try their best because Judge makes $40M a year? No, not everyone can be LeBron or Judge or Aaron Rodgers, but these are team games and everyone tries their best to maximize their own benefit regardless of what others are getting. If LeBron was making the same as the last guy on the bench, what is his incentive to play his very best? What is the incentive for the worst player to improve if he already makes the same as Lebron? Communism in sports is as dumb as communism in business.
 

cpf2001

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
454
Anyone who is part of sports team, professional or otherwise, would be booted from their team if they refuse to produce at their best level out of jealousy because someone is better or makes more than them. Team chemistry can turn on a variety of reason, but pay disparity is not usually one of them. Disparity in pay in sports is not something new. Babe Ruth made more than the rest of the team combined and the Yankees chemistry in the 20s and 30s was just fine. Do you really think the lowest paid Yankees are not going to try their best because Judge makes $40M a year? No, not everyone can be LeBron or Judge or Aaron Rodgers, but these are team games and everyone tries their best to maximize their own benefit regardless of what others are getting. If LeBron was making the same as the last guy on the bench, what is his incentive to play his very best? What is the incentive for the worst player to improve if he already makes the same as Lebron? Communism in sports is as dumb as communism in business.
On the flip side, do you not think there's a reason there's a minimum salary in pro leagues?
 

leatherneckjacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,230
Location
Atlanta, GA
I get the point you are trying to make, but are you sure that government supported "robber barons" and the business/labor practices of the industrial revolution are the best example of the point you are trying to make?
That is a simplistic view of those times. People like Ford, Edison, Morse, Whitney, Fulton, Vanderbilt, and the Wright brothers did not innovate and succeed because they were government supported "robber barons".
 

leatherneckjacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,230
Location
Atlanta, GA
On the flip side, do you not think there's a reason there's a minimum salary in pro leagues?
It is because it is a deviation of capitalism where the workers are demanding more of the capital. Similarly, the salary cap is also a deviation of capitalism where the owners are limiting the inclusion of their capital.
 

cpf2001

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
454
It is because it is a deviation of capitalism where the workers are demanding more of the capital. Similarly, the salary cap is also a deviation of capitalism where the owners are limiting the inclusion of their capital.
The latter one is especially interesting when you look at which owners are most in favor of revenue sharing, salary caps, max salary limits...

I'm not sure why "demanding" is any sort of deviation, though. What's wrong with negotiating? Is it just the collective bargaining part?

If LeBron was making the same as the last guy on the bench, what is his incentive to play his very best?
Cause if so, and clearly going back to an amateur model is off the table too...

While you might think an unlimited NIL, poach-all-the-best-players-to-the-richest-schools-all-the-time, "pure" capitalistic NCAA basketball is obviously the best possible sport for everyone, I don't know that it would stay interesting to me for that long.
 

TampaBuzz

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
683
Anyone who is part of sports team, professional or otherwise, would be booted from their team if they refuse to produce at their best level out of jealousy because someone is better or makes more than them. Team chemistry can turn on a variety of reason, but pay disparity is not usually one of them. Disparity in pay in sports is not something new. Babe Ruth made more than the rest of the team combined and the Yankees chemistry in the 20s and 30s was just fine. Do you really think the lowest paid Yankees are not going to try their best because Judge makes $40M a year? No, not everyone can be LeBron or Judge or Aaron Rodgers, but these are team games and everyone tries their best to maximize their own benefit regardless of what others are getting. If LeBron was making the same as the last guy on the bench, what is his incentive to play his very best? What is the incentive for the worst player to improve if he already makes the same as Lebron? Communism in sports is as dumb as communism in business.
The Yankees are probably pulling their hair out knowing that they are trailing the Tampa Bay Rays by 6.5 games....and the Rays entire payroll is about equal to Judge's single contract. :D

I know that several of the most productive, high profile Tampa Bay Lightning players signed deals at less than what the market would bear so that the team could pay more to the 3rd and 4th line guys that ultimately determine who wins the title. They wanted to win championships - two Stanley Cups and a Cup final are the result.
 

cpf2001

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
454
The Yankees wish they could just directly bid on all the Rays’ best prospects and young players every year in the transfer portal. 😏
 

leatherneckjacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,230
Location
Atlanta, GA
The latter one is especially interesting when you look at which owners are most in favor of revenue sharing, salary caps, max salary limits...

I'm not sure why "demanding" is any sort of deviation, though. What's wrong with negotiating? Is it just the collective bargaining part?


Cause if so, and clearly going back to an amateur model is off the table too...

While you might think an unlimited NIL, poach-all-the-best-players-to-the-richest-schools-all-the-time, "pure" capitalistic NCAA basketball is obviously the best possible sport for everyone, I don't know that it would stay interesting to me for that long.
To be clear, I was talking specifically about salary and am not advocating for an unlimited NIL structure couple with a complete lack of rules in college sports.

College sports and professional sports are very different. Some of the differences you listed (minimum pay, salary caps) as well as others (draft rules, trade rules, tampering rules, contract rules, etc.). There is good reason for professional leagues to create some rules to maintain competitive balance. Otherwise you get richest teams (the Yankees in the 40s and 50s or the Celtics of the 60s) winning the championships every year. This is where college sports is headed. I know to some extent we were already there, but this will accelerate the gap in competition between the haves and the have nots. So, I think the NCAA needs to establish some competitive balance rules (transfer rules, tampering rules, contract rules, etc.) and enforce them like the professional leagues. Then, you can open the door to unlimited NIL structure.

Also, players are trying their best in high school and in college in the hopes of maximizing their future earnings. Did the amateur model work for Lebron in High School? If Lebron did not excel in High School because he did not get paid, just like everyone else, then he never would he have been drafted 1st overall. But if there was no big pay day at the end of the road for LeBron or others, then what is the incentive to try your best in High School, College or beyond? There is none.
 

leatherneckjacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,230
Location
Atlanta, GA
The Yankees are probably pulling their hair out knowing that they are trailing the Tampa Bay Rays by 6.5 games....and the Rays entire payroll is about equal to Judge's single contract. :D

I know that several of the most productive, high profile Tampa Bay Lightning players signed deals at less than what the market would bear so that the team could pay more to the 3rd and 4th line guys that ultimately determine who wins the title. They wanted to win championships - two Stanley Cups and a Cup final are the result.
The Rays are the best at what they do, which is maximizing the value of the resources in their organization. The Yankees are one of the worst. As a Yankees fan, I wish they would move away from trying to buy championships and move to model more like the Rays where they consider how they can maximize the return of their assets, even if that means letting some potential stars go. Then, they could then pay Judge $40M but not be saddled with a bunch of bad contracts like they have with Stanton, Hicks, Donaldson, etc.
 

cpf2001

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
454
College sports and professional sports are very different. Some of the differences you listed (minimum pay, salary caps) as well as others (draft rules, trade rules, tampering rules, contract rules, etc.). There is good reason for professional leagues to create some rules to maintain competitive balance. Otherwise you get richest teams (the Yankees in the 40s and 50s or the Celtics of the 60s) winning the championships every year. This is where college sports is headed. I know to some extent we were already there, but this will accelerate the gap in competition between the haves and the have nots. So, I think the NCAA needs to establish some competitive balance rules (transfer rules, tampering rules, contract rules, etc.) and enforce them like the professional leagues. Then, you can open the door to unlimited NIL structure.

I agree with this but the only practical way I see the NCAA being allowed to restrict things is through collective bargaining with an actual player union like the pro leagues. The courts are not showing any patience for employment-contract-like restrictions without employment compensation in college sports. And then that won’t happen without some player concessions too like salary floors.

(I don’t think all minor league sports are similarly structured, I imagine there’s just not enough money in them for players to think it worth bringing legal cases? Vs the obvious NIL/merchandising/video games stuff and similar.)
 

leatherneckjacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,230
Location
Atlanta, GA
I agree with this but the only practical way I see the NCAA being allowed to restrict things is through collective bargaining with an actual player union like the pro leagues. The courts are not showing any patience for employment-contract-like restrictions without employment compensation in college sports. And then that won’t happen without some player concessions too like salary floors.

(I don’t think all minor league sports are similarly structured, I imagine there’s just not enough money in them for players to think it worth bringing legal cases? Vs the obvious NIL/merchandising/video games stuff and similar.)
The NCAA can reinstate the rule to sit one year after transferring. No court will block that. It already has tampering rules, they just don't bother to enforce them.
 

CEB

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,398
Yes, true teamwork is somewhat like communism. It’s everyone sacrificing for the good of all.
I’m going back to this post and saying that I would never equate the two. You said “somewhat” so I won’t derail into semantics, but i don’t think the comparison suggests a clear understanding of at least one of the concepts you’re equating.
I would not expect pay to be equal anymore than I would expect playing time to be equal.
The sacrifice you refer to is the physical and personal sacrifice to better one’s self, which in turn betters the whole. It’s not the sacrifice of top performers regressing to the mean (which I think is what you suggest).
The area where I would agree with you is that team successes / achievements (post season bonus and such) would be shared on a team basis.
All of that is to say that this exact conversation is why college athletics fought so long to stay amateur. The money got too big and the powers that be botched the enforcement and here we are...
 

cpf2001

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
454
The NCAA can reinstate the rule to sit one year after transferring. No court will block that. It already has tampering rules, they just don't bother to enforce them.
I'm not so certain even on that right now. If I'm the NCAA, I don't want to open any doors to any more legal scrutiny at all, since I'm already in potentially hot water. I don't know if they'd lose the case, and I don't think it would've been likely to get that rule overturned before they changed it, but I think once the genie is out of the bottle it could be tricky to put it back in. It would not be hard for a player to make a case that a primary reason it's come back is to limit the amount of compensation they can get. "It's interferring with the contracts the players can get from sponsors who happen to be affiliated with other teams" or some such. Any defense claims about "this rule shouldn't be invalidated just because of speculative ideas about the potential impact on their earnings" are suddenly no longer speculative and very concrete.
 

leatherneckjacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,230
Location
Atlanta, GA
I'm not so certain even on that right now. If I'm the NCAA, I don't want to open any doors to any more legal scrutiny at all, since I'm already in potentially hot water. I don't know if they'd lose the case, and I don't think it would've been likely to get that rule overturned before they changed it, but I think once the genie is out of the bottle it could be tricky to put it back in. It would not be hard for a player to make a case that a primary reason it's come back is to limit the amount of compensation they can get. "It's interferring with the contracts the players can get from sponsors who happen to be affiliated with other teams" or some such. Any defense claims about "this rule shouldn't be invalidated just because of speculative ideas about the potential impact on their earnings" are suddenly no longer speculative and very concrete.
I think you are mistaken. The student-athlete signs a contract with the school. The NCAA can establish a rule that its member schools be forced to sit a player a year if they break that contract. The NIL agreements cannot supercede this.

By your logic, professional athletes could break their contract with their current team and switch to another team if they want at any time if they have a side contract that allows them make more money with another team. No court would allow you to void a contract just because you can make more money from sponsors if you played for another team
 

cpf2001

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
454
I think you are mistaken. The student-athlete signs a contract with the school. The NCAA can establish a rule that its member schools be forced to sit a player a year if they break that contract. The NIL agreements cannot supercede this.
But the validity of contracts made in the current system is the whole dispute. Kavanaugh in particular has made it very clear he sees it as employment (calling the athletes the school's "workers").

You're right, transferring is very different than something like Alston since currently the compensation here would be indirect. But how certain is the NCAA right now that there isn't a judge out there who's gonna look at the scholarship contracts, look at *other* student employment contracts, and say something to effect of "hey, this student athlete transfer one is violating anti-trust too, there's no restrictions on other students transferring and then working immediately at their new school, nor is there a justification for us allowing that restriction given the lopsided nature of the market, since it's now preventing this student from transferring for more money like any other student"? And then get that pushed to a Supreme Court where the justices have been very vocally skeptical of the system?
 

cpf2001

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
454
By your logic, professional athletes could break their contract with their current team and switch to another team if they want at any time if they have a side contract that allows them make more money with another team. No court would allow you to void a contract just because you can make more money from sponsors if you played for another team
Replying separately to this one since it was added after I started my first reply. :)

I think the big difference is that the pro leagues have established a team/player relationship and top-level negotiated agreement that college sports lacks entirely.

Otherwise this example is somewhat similar-but-different to how MLB used their pre-1998 antitrust exemptions to avoid allowing free agency in the Flood case before the Supreme Court. This was eventually curtailed by Congress, saying MLB players had the same rights and protections as other pro athletes, but by then the players had already gotten free agency through arbitration and then new labor contracts anyway.

Namely, the clause in question said the team reserved the rights to the player *even after contract expiration*.

And I haven't seen the wording of all scholarship agreements, but it looks like especially outside of P5 schools, it's common for them to be year-to-year agreements. So if the school can cut you loose after one year, why can't you cut the school loose? So I think that's a interesting example to look at for an example of how even in a more-negotiated-rules-setting, leagues have been ruled to only have so much power to require things in their contracts, and that reserve clause doesn't seem like it would've flied without an antitrust exemption. Ultimately the pro leagues ended up in a place of "you can have multi-year contracts, but you can't keep the rights to the players after that." And that would probably fly in college sports; maybe you'd even have a transfer rule so long as you're still paying the player, if the sides came to agreement on that.

But the NCAA is given a lot *less* leeway right now by the courts, I think in large part because their rules are being set by dictat instead of by negotiation at all.
 

leatherneckjacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,230
Location
Atlanta, GA
Replying separately to this one since it was added after I started my first reply. :)

I think the big difference is that the pro leagues have established a team/player relationship and top-level negotiated agreement that college sports lacks entirely.

Otherwise this example is somewhat similar-but-different to how MLB used their pre-1998 antitrust exemptions to avoid allowing free agency in the Flood case before the Supreme Court. This was eventually curtailed by Congress, saying MLB players had the same rights and protections as other pro athletes, but by then the players had already gotten free agency through arbitration and then new labor contracts anyway.

Namely, the clause in question said the team reserved the rights to the player *even after contract expiration*.

And I haven't seen the wording of all scholarship agreements, but it looks like especially outside of P5 schools, it's common for them to be year-to-year agreements. So if the school can cut you loose after one year, why can't you cut the school loose? So I think that's a interesting example to look at for an example of how even in a more-negotiated-rules-setting, leagues have been ruled to only have so much power to require things in their contracts, and that reserve clause doesn't seem like it would've flied without an antitrust exemption. Ultimately the pro leagues ended up in a place of "you can have multi-year contracts, but you can't keep the rights to the players after that." And that would probably fly in college sports; maybe you'd even have a transfer rule so long as you're still paying the player, if the sides came to agreement on that.

But the NCAA is given a lot *less* leeway right now by the courts, I think in large part because their rules are being set by dictat instead of by negotiation at all.
I am sorry, but the NCAA can still dictate eligibility to play. Taking your argument to a natural extension, a student athlete could sue the NCAA for forcing him to sit for any reason as that would impact his other contract revenue. That is an absurd position.
 

cpf2001

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
454
Courts are much more "where do we draw the line" then "let's extend the argument forever" in stuff like this, and they clearly haven't been drawing the line in the same place as the NCAA recently.

I'm not confident they'd overturn a sit-if-you-transfer a rule if it was reinstated, but I wouldn't be shocked if it got challenged and the challenge made it a long way or was upheld, *especially* if it was in regard to a school which didn't guarantee that the scholarship would be around for the next year. It's a similar sort of "have it both ways" dealing that the Supreme Court has been extremely skeptical of. "You won't guarantee me a scholarship here, but you will restrict my eligibility if I leave." Is that so far from "You will make money of my performance and my likeness, but you will take away my eligibility if I take money for it."?

I'd love to see it, though, because IMO the sooner the courts fully rip up the pretense of amateurism that the NCAA has pretended to have for decades, the sooner we can build a new system with newly-negotiated rules like the pro leagues. It was in the sports' media's interest to pretend that there was a truly fair, amateur playing ground for the last 50+ years; the court system has no similar profit motive to ignore how one-sided and ham-handed things have been.
 
Top