Where does College BB go from here

[glandon1960]

If NBA changes rules to be more like MLB, that could have some positive impact.

Once you start paying college kids - it's a slippery slope and abuses will likely get worse than today.
I am not against a student athlete getting a job - any non-athlete can get a job to help with expenses if they wish with caveat the student-athlete must report it to university, get approval from them, etc - but they need to actually work (i.e. show up and do what they are hired to do), and pay needs to be in-line with market for that job (i.e. no paying someone $50,000 with free use of a sports car to flip hamburgers 8 hours a week). I know this can and would be exploited by some, but eliminates where the stipend comes from and could teach some kids skills/lessons that help them later in life.
For example - if someone on the golf team works in the pro-shop at a local country club ... they could earn a few $$$ and learn if they want to pursue a job as a club pro should they not make it to the professional tour.

If I am correct, MLB tells kids they can either be drafted and go to minor league (can not recall HS kid going straight to Major league) - or - they need to wait 3 years before having another shot.
That could do wonders for consistency in NCAA hoops .. once someone comes you know they are likely to stay at least 3 years - and those top kids that do come are spread out further than today (it seems like UK/Duke reload with 5-6 top 25 kids almost each year .... knowing most will only be there 1-2 years).

The top 10-15 (or those that think they are that good and are only using college basketball to try to get to NBA) - could choose to go to G League and spend all their time working on basketball - and by turning pro they could not come back to NCAA basketball. The large $$$ being discussed generally are only involving players that are likely 1 and done. While Duke/UNC/KU/UK/Arizona/etc will still fight for top talent (and get their share), the difference the 50th best player makes vs. a top 10 talent in their first year is usually significant .... and since those kids are less likely to leave after 1 year, the top schools can't hoard as many - spreading the talent around a little more - and making more teams competitive.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Well, Duke, North Carolina, Louisville, NC State, Virginia, Clemson, and Notre Dame have all been implicated - just going from memory. I may have missed some. So at this rate, I'm thinking that as the 6th seed in the ACC we should probably end up around a 10th seed in the NCAA Tournament.

No, I'm not naive that the UNCAA will do anything. But I mean, dayam, just to use one example - Dennis Smith literally shows up in the accounting books at a company for $43,000.

 

[okiemon]

That would definitely harm college football and college basketball because at least some of the elite athletes would skip college to get paid.

I'm not even sure it would hurt the college sports in the long run. Say all of the 5-stars opted to go straight into the pros out of high school. You may lower the overall talent level in college ball, but the competitiveness should be the same, or even better.

Of course, without the 5-stars, the television networks may prefer to televise the D-league, or G-league, or wherever those kids go to play for pay, but I can't imagine too many fans getting all worked up over their local D- league team, can you?

 

[GTpdm]

They are probably holding a ton of closed door conversations about how to do something which is really doing nothing to avoid getting negative press about never doing anything.

I think I would ‘like’ this remark...if only I could figure out what it meant.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I think I would ‘like’ this remark...if only I could figure out what it meant.

Ha! Just imagine the NCAA desperately trying to figure out what to do - to avoid having to do anything.

 

[Texwood]

I think I would ‘like’ this remark...if only I could figure out what it meant.

This is an indication that the remark sufficiently captures the NCAA sleight of hand shell game. Go ahead and like...

 

[Buzzzard]

Just send them to the Hawks right out of high school. That'd like a D league team, or it could be if the Hawks improved.

 

[RonJohn]

I'm not even sure it would hurt the college sports in the long run. Say all of the 5-stars opted to go straight into the pros out of high school. You may lower the overall talent level in college ball, but the competitiveness should be the same, or even better.

Of course, without the 5-stars, the television networks may prefer to televise the D-league, or G-league, or wherever those kids go to play for pay, but I can't imagine too many fans getting all worked up over their local D- league team, can you?

I don't think it would hurt competition or athletics of college sports. I do think it would hurt the revenue value of college sports if the majority of five star players and many four start players don't go to college. I'm ok with that. Maybe a reduction in revenue would get the majority of schools to treat athletics as competition between schools and student athletes.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[MWBATL]

The more I think about this whole issue, the more I believe that what should be done is simply to allow all colleges and universities to establish majors in Professional Sports. Isn't the function of a college to prepare a young person for a job in their chosen field? If that chosen field happens to be football or basketball, why shouldn't their curriculum be styled to that profession? Off field classes could be in topics like how to select an agent, what's it like to play professionally overseas, and how to manage your money for retirement. (Just examples, of course.) These are all things that young people who wish to have careers in professional sports need, much more than calculus or some of the other requirements we place on them.

Then, schools can decide if they want to be a part of this. If they don't, drop down into the Classifications of schools that do not offer these majors (Div II). If you do, then at least we all start out with a level playing field for classes etc. And at least we get past the silly notions that people have today about "student-athletes".

What this does not address is the issue of guys getting paid. I am less certain how to equalize that issue so we don't just have a "money buys championships" situation (like we do today in all big time college sports). Especially when the payments are apparently coming from agents, show companies etc. Maybe you simply make kids who want that stuff go pro, period.

I dunno.....

 

[deeeznutz]

Short answer...drop the one and done rule and let them go to the NBA or developmental leagues out of high school and let the NBA pay them. Those that go the college route can pursue their education and play basketball on scholarship.

FYI, they can right now go straight to the NBA developmental league (G League, because Gatorade) out of high school, they just don’t get paid very much so no big time players consider it worthwhile. Funny, they’d rather go to the NCAA and live under those rules (well, getting paid $100K under the table sure doesn’t hurt the equation) than play for minor league wages.
I’d personally love to see a broadened minor league though. If anything, it would hurt our competition a lot more than it would us, since the guys with basketball skills and zero interest in academics (aka the players we have no chance of getting anyway) would be going there instead of filling out the rosters of the teams we play.

 

[deeeznutz]

There has been some great discussion in the FBI thread around how college basketball has to evolve. I wanted to pull that out and talk about it separately. I certainly do not have the answers, but I have lots of questions to think about.

Everyone seems to be in agreement that 'players need to get paid' - but that is actually a very ambiguous statement and whatever is decided on will have to be codified into rules and regulations. So here are some thoughts and questions to get off and running.

Assuming that players are going to be paid on some level.

1. Does the University pay them?
Most of the comments I have seen do not have the University directly paying them. No other sport has players being directly paid (outside of scholarship and stipend if you consider that getting paid). If the University starts to directly play players that raises a number of issues.
1a. How much do you pay them? Is it limited to the same amount for every school?
1b. if the University is paying them are they no longer Student-athletes but employees? The recent NLRB ruling with NW students would suggest the answer to this is yes.
1c. If the answer to 1b is yes then are their payments taxed (i'd be shocked if the answer is anything but yes)?
1d If the answer to 1b is yes, can they be 'fired' like any other employee if their 'performance' is not up to standards.
1e. If you start playing bb players do you have to pay students from other sports -especially football?

For what it is worth, my easy answer to #1 above is Universities do not pay college student-athletes beyond scholarship and stipend.

2. Can boosters pay them?
This potentially opens up a huge can of worms and I suspect the NCAA would never approve this route, but I leave it for discussion. Among the questions is how much could they pay them and do the players have to work for the booster to be payed?

My take, is no boosters cannot pay college student-athletes.

3. Can they sign with agents?
This seems to be the biggest one that gets traction. This would start to get closer to an Olympic model as an athlete would likely need an agent for any endorsement deals.

3a. If agents are allowed to sign athletes, what is the age limit (how old does the athlete have to be before they can legally sign with an agent)?
3b. How long can they sign for?
3c. Is there a maximum amount they can be signed for?
3d Is any of this under the purview of the NCAA or is this simply a legal issue outside the NCAA?

My initial take on this is yes, there will have to be an age limit and this will likely fall under the U.S. legal system and not the NCAA.

4. Can the student-athlete have endorsement deals?
This sort of goes hand in hand with #3 and basically creates an Olympic model of amateurism.

4a. Can the student-athlete take any endorsement deal they want?
4b. Is there any limit to the amount of endorsement money they can take?
4c. If a SA signs an endorsement deal with one apparel company and the University has a deal with another apparel company, whose apparel do they wear?
4d. If the student-athlete does any endorsements - whether TV commercial, pKrint ad, etc are they allowed to wear the University's uniform?
4e. If 4d is yes then does the University get a cut of the endorsement money?
4f. If a student-athlete receives endorsement money does it affect how much scholarship money they receive?
4g. If the answer to 4F is yes then do you have to re-look at how scholarship limits are assigned? (For example - a really highly ranked kid gets $500K in endorsement deals and can go to any college and not need a scholly. Do you have him not on a scholly, but still count him against the scholly limit?)

My initial feeling on this is that a SA can have endorsement deals, like any Olympic athlete. There would be no limit on the amount of endorsement money they could receive. But if they do use a school uniform then the school would get a cut. More than likely most endorsement deals would likely not include the SA in uniform. I also think that the University deal would likely trump the SA deal on apparel. i think there would almost certainly be rules on what endorsements an SA could do - for example I can't see them being allowed to do a deal with a casino, or a nightclub. I could see both scholarship limits and money offset for schollys being looked at.


I'm sure i'm leaving alot out but this is just to get it started - saying 'pay the players' is the easy part, the difficult part is deciding what that actually means and how to put it in action.

Allowing endorsement deals will almost certainly push this issues down further into HS as agents (as they already do) will be trying to sign kids as soon as they can.

The relationships between coaches, SA's and agents could change pretty radically. Say an agent signs a highly regarded kid for $150K and the kid ends up at State U. The kid also has $500K in endorsement deals. Now say like many highly ranked FR, he ends up not being a superstar as a FR - think Chaudee Brown at Wake or MJ Walker at FSU. What if the coach feels like the SA needs to play fewer min, or he is not a team player and is hurting the team. If the coach sits him down, how fast are the agent and endorsement company, and probably the kid himself going to start coming after the coach saying he should play more, have the ball in his hands more - because they all have financial interests in the SA playing alot.

if the NBA ultimately decides to change the one and done rule that could have a pretty significant effect as well. Let's say they change the rule and yearly most of the Top 25-30 players decide to go straight to the G-league. You are siphoning off the cream of the crop. The financial potential of the Top 10 players against a Top 50 player is huge. But the financial potential for an agent for a Top 50 player vs a Top 150 player is not really that big. That talent gets alot more compressed as you head down the rankings. So you would still likely see agents signing kids, but the dollar values are likely to be alot lower. And now that Top 50 kid is likely going to Duke or KY or KS instead of the tier 2 schools - but they won't be commanding the same sort of agent signing and endorsement deals that a Top 10 player would be. The total amount of pay in that scenario in college is going to be alot less than if the Top 10 to Top 25 kids have to go to college.

All right, have at it.

One thing here, you say you’re against boosters paying players but for players getting endorsements. That is EXACTLY the route a booster would take to pay players...they’d just have them do ads for their car dealership/suit shop/tattoo parlor/etc. Allowing players to receive endorsements is flat out opening it up for boosters. Similarly, paying players based on jersey sales (or other things of that nature) would be used the same way...some booster would just buy up a pile of jerseys as a way to funnel money to the players, with the university getting a nice bonus too. Basically any way they open it up to allow players to make money is immediately going to be exploited by shady people looking to give their school a leg up.

 

[theputnambee]

If we're going to pay them then we should just rank them 1 thru 500 and have a draft......no more recruiting. Just like the NBA.

 

[awbuzz]

One thing here, you say you’re against boosters paying players but for players getting endorsements. That is EXACTLY the route a booster would take to pay players...they’d just have them do ads for their car dealership/suit shop/tattoo parlor/etc. Allowing players to receive endorsements is flat out opening it up for boosters. Similarly, paying players based on jersey sales (or other things of that nature) would be used the same way...some booster would just buy up a pile of jerseys as a way to funnel money to the players, with the university getting a nice bonus too. Basically any way they open it up to allow players to make money is immediately going to be exploited by shady people looking to give their school a leg up.

Was the "a leg up" in reference to the team in Athen's? Pretty sure they'd be all up in the dealer ads (car ads of course, can't have them advertising drugs )

 

[CuseJacket]

Goodbye one-and-done: With scandals rocking youth basketball, NBA readying to step in

A plan is expected to include the NBA starting relationships with elite teenagers while they are in high school, providing skills to help them develop both on and off the court. It would ultimately open an alternate path to the NBA besides playing in college and a way 18-year-olds could earn a meaningful salary either from NBA teams or as part of an enhanced option in the developmental G League, sources said.

Silver could present a plan within the next few months, though the league is planning to wait until after the Commission on College Basketball presents its report this spring. Both Silver and NBPA executive director Michele Roberts have appeared before the commission, which is chaired by Condoleezza Rice.

"We are looking at changing the relationship we have with players before they reach the NBA," one high-ranking league official said. "This is a complex challenge, and there's still a lot of discussion about how it's going to happen, but we all see the need to step in."

Also a recap of the discussion re: basketball academies

 

[YlJacket]

The NBA seems to be shying away from an academy(s) in the US. From a resource perspective it is a totally different animal to build one academy for 20 or so guys to train, eat, and play versus trying to put academy level infrastructure in for 32 or whatever G League teams. In that context colleges with their significant - dare I say Academy like - training and nutrition infrastructure is still going to be advantageous over playing in the G League and having to spend a big part of your salary on food, living, etc. And that is even recognizing the UCon player's commentary that he was going to bed hungry in the NCAA

 

[CuseJacket]

Rovell: NCAA tops $1 billion in revenue during 2016-17 school year

The NCAA pulled in more than $1 billion in revenue for the first time in history during the last school year.

The $1.06 billion in revenue from September 2016 through August 2017 is reported in audited financials the organization released on Wednesday.

The majority of the NCAA revenue came from its usual source -- the NCAA tournament. The NCAA pulled in $761 million from the 2017 NCAA tournament. That fee will rise to $869 million this year.

The NCAA also generated $129.4 million in ticket revenue and $60 million in marketing rights for fiscal 2017.

The NCAA's expenses were $956 million. The largest chunk of it being the dispersal of $560.3 million back to its roughly 1,100 member institutions in 24 sports in all three divisions, as well as $200 million for a one-time payment the NCAA made to schools to fund additional programs.

Another $160.5 million went to the Division I performance fund, which awards conferences based on how many teams play in the NCAA tournament and how far they advance. Units are paid out over six years.

The NCAA also recorded a $209 million settlement related to those past athletes who argued the value of their scholarships was illegally capped. A $70 million concussion testing and diagnosis settlement also hangs in the balance. The organization notes it is still negotiating with its insurance carriers.

 

[Peacone36]

What terrible timing for that to happen for all of the "don't pay the players" advocates.

 

[Techster]

Rovell: NCAA tops $1 billion in revenue during 2016-17 school year

Nothing to see here folks...just let our staff of accountants handle this...

 

[Peacone36]

Nothing to see here folks...just let our staff of accountants handle this...

NCAA memo: “Quick! Everyone order $31000 worth of office furniture.”

 

[MidtownJacket]

What terrible timing for that to happen for all of the "don't pay the players" advocates.

I’m one of the “don’t pay the players” types. I don’t actually see it as a conflict.

I am against paying the players because there isn’t an equitable market system that I have seen which would allow schools to have a reasonable standard for paying certain kids amounts based on their abilities. There would be an immense burden on the schools and smaller programs to work out a reasonable payment schedule and level across the board. How do you value correctly a bench player v a preferred walk on v a guy who gets 3 minutes a game? There are too many variables to workout.

Furthermore the schools should not be in the business of professional athletics. If the kids want to make money that is fine go play in a professional league. Schools don’t pay their undergrad students $ to keep the smartest kids for ranking purposes. This is why scholarships were created. That process works. It’s a trade for free school in exchange for the value the school gets from notoriety of a program or revenue from games.

I don’t understand why people are so bent on paying the kids more money. They benefit materially from the development they get while in school.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk