Where does College BB go from here

[Peacone36]

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

I............don’t know how I feel about it.

 

[MidtownJacket]

I............don’t know how I feel about it.

Haha, I think it’s an example of the media screwing things up.

No one wants to have someone taken advantage of. There is this narrative that player athletes are being exploited in a predatory system because there is all this money being generated by college athletics and the players aren’t getting paid. That is a false narrative in my mind because it ignores the context of the situation.

The players benefit from attending school (which is why I get so bent out of shape by programs which devalue the educational benefit they provide by watering down their academics for athletes). The system is broken, but not because the players aren’t making $ - it’s broken because the players aren’t getting the benefit from ACTUALLY GOING TO CLASS.

Ok rant over, soap box put away, thanks for listening.

[emoji851]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CuseJacket]

Two things:

1. Paying players in college will not resolve the agent or AAU coach issues. Both are still incentivized to "get theirs".

2. Agree with @MidtownJacket's latter point. It is a "free market" now. There is little unfair with the current system. If you want to get paid, go to G-League or Euro when you feel you're ready. No one is stopping you. Go start your own league and be an entrepreneur for all I care. I don't care if college ball suffers. You have a choice before you sign up for D-1 basketball.

Now, if you prefer the marketing platform that college basketball provides for less pay, or maybe you want to be taught your craft by the best in the profession for less pay, that's your decision. I'm considering tuition/room/board/stipend as privileges for basketball ability. Could they get a little more? Fine, but there shouldn't be a mandatory overhaul when it's the players' choice in the first place.

Whether college basketball wants to pay salaries or not to compete with the G League or Euro, it's their decision. It's not "slave labor" or whatever some out there are comparing it to now, even the NCAA. The athlete-students have a right to opt-in or go elsewhere. And the players know the rules before they make that choice.

 

[dtm1997]

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

What about a system where every student-athlete in every sport and of each gender received the same benefits from the school, while at the same time, the student-athletes, regardless of sport or gender, were allowed to get paid for having their likeness thrown up on a billboard endorsing a local business or getting paid for conducting an autograph session, in which the school did not make the payments, but outside parties did?

Jay Bilas likes to drop hot takes, which is his business, but if you listen to more thought out ideas around it, it doesn't have to be the schools that foot the bill for kids getting paid.

People keep equating "student-athletes getting paid" to "student-athletes getting paid by the colleges". It doesn't have to equate to that.

Now, if you're response to that concept is "Georgia Tech will get blown out of the water by what other schools can do", then I'll agree with you. I'll also say tough **** and ask you how you're gonna be part of the solution in what could be the new landscape.

If, at that point, you choose to not be part of the solution, that's fine, but your complaints will fall on deaf ears going forward.

If, at that point, you choose to not want to participate in being a college athletics fan, that's fine, but take a hike and don't chime in.

You'll have self-selected out. Get out of the way & stay out of the way.

@MidtownJacket - the above is my response to your concept as a whole and not me telling you to STFU and go away.

I'm fully supportive of colleges providing scholarships, room & board, & cost of attendance, while the free market outside of the college provides compensation based on someone's market value.

 

[Peacone36]

What about a system where every student-athlete in every sport and of each gender received the same benefits from the school, while at the same time, the student-athletes, regardless of sport or gender, were allowed to get paid for having their likeness thrown up on a billboard endorsing a local business or getting paid for conducting an autograph session, in which the school did not make the payments, but outside parties did?

Jay Bilas likes to drop hot takes, which is his business, but if you listen to more thought out ideas around it, it doesn't have to be the schools that foot the bill for kids getting paid.

People keep equating "student-athletes getting paid" to "student-athletes getting paid by the colleges". It doesn't have to equate to that.

Now, if you're response to that concept is "Georgia Tech will get blown out of the water by what other schools can do", then I'll agree with you. I'll also say tough **** and ask you how you're gonna be part of the solution in what could be the new landscape.

If, at that point, you choose to not be part of the solution, that's fine, but your complaints will fall on deaf ears going forward.

If, at that point, you choose to not want to participate in being a college athletics fan, that's fine, but take a hike and don't chime in.

You'll have self-selected out. Get out of the way & stay out of the way.

@MidtownJacket - the above is my response to your concept as a whole and not me telling you to STFU and go away.

I'm fully supportive of colleges providing scholarships, room & board, & cost of attendance, while the free market outside of the college provides compensation based on someone's market value.

What stops a booster from approaching an athlete and simply overpaying by $50K for a players autograph and chalking that up to "market value"

This is the scenario that gives me pause.

 

[dtm1997]

What stops a booster from approaching an athlete and simply overpaying by $50K for a players autograph and chalking that up to "market value"

This is the scenario that gives me pause.

Short answer - Nothing stops them, but at least it's registered, transparent, & taxable income.

Longer answer - kids can do autograph sessions, they have to establish a price for each autograph, and earn the money. So if the kid sets the price at $50 and a booster wants to use that as cover to give the kid $50,000, he's gotta deliver 1,000 autographs. Then the kid needs to declare it as taxable income.

If someone is willing to pay you for personal services of some sort, the services need to be delivered & taxed.

 

[RonJohn]

What about a system where every student-athlete in every sport and of each gender received the same benefits from the school, while at the same time, the student-athletes, regardless of sport or gender, were allowed to get paid for having their likeness thrown up on a billboard endorsing a local business or getting paid for conducting an autograph session, in which the school did not make the payments, but outside parties did?

Jay Bilas likes to drop hot takes, which is his business, but if you listen to more thought out ideas around it, it doesn't have to be the schools that foot the bill for kids getting paid.

People keep equating "student-athletes getting paid" to "student-athletes getting paid by the colleges". It doesn't have to equate to that.

Now, if you're response to that concept is "Georgia Tech will get blown out of the water by what other schools can do", then I'll agree with you. I'll also say tough **** and ask you how you're gonna be part of the solution in what could be the new landscape.

If, at that point, you choose to not be part of the solution, that's fine, but your complaints will fall on deaf ears going forward.

If, at that point, you choose to not want to participate in being a college athletics fan, that's fine, but take a hike and don't chime in.

You'll have self-selected out. Get out of the way & stay out of the way.

@MidtownJacket - the above is my response to your concept as a whole and not me telling you to STFU and go away.

I'm fully supportive of colleges providing scholarships, room & board, & cost of attendance, while the free market outside of the college provides compensation based on someone's market value.

I don't believe that would do anything about the root of the problem. Schools should be primarily about academics. Getting boosters to pay for "non-students" to "play school" while competing in sports would be at least as messy and maybe even worse.

The whole system will not be significantly better until actual students compete and those who only want to be professional athletes have better opportunities than "playing school". I don't know much about baseball, but it seems to work better when kids who only want to play sports have the ability to do that.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[MidtownJacket]

What about a system where every student-athlete in every sport and of each gender received the same benefits from the school, while at the same time, the student-athletes, regardless of sport or gender, were allowed to get paid for having their likeness thrown up on a billboard endorsing a local business or getting paid for conducting an autograph session, in which the school did not make the payments, but outside parties did?

Jay Bilas likes to drop hot takes, which is his business, but if you listen to more thought out ideas around it, it doesn't have to be the schools that foot the bill for kids getting paid.

People keep equating "student-athletes getting paid" to "student-athletes getting paid by the colleges". It doesn't have to equate to that.

Now, if you're response to that concept is "Georgia Tech will get blown out of the water by what other schools can do", then I'll agree with you. I'll also say tough **** and ask you how you're gonna be part of the solution in what could be the new landscape.

If, at that point, you choose to not be part of the solution, that's fine, but your complaints will fall on deaf ears going forward.

If, at that point, you choose to not want to participate in being a college athletics fan, that's fine, but take a hike and don't chime in.

You'll have self-selected out. Get out of the way & stay out of the way.

@MidtownJacket - the above is my response to your concept as a whole and not me telling you to STFU and go away.

I'm fully supportive of colleges providing scholarships, room & board, & cost of attendance, while the free market outside of the college provides compensation based on someone's market value.

Appreciate the discussion, I don't take these things personally. I come to boards like this one to engage in thoughtful conversation with people about the issues surrounding GT in sports. I actually would be interested in a compromise solution that enabled the market to bear the load of the additional financial compensation a player could derive but I struggle to envision a scenario that would be better enforced than the world we live in today. As Peacone notes above this post - the issue I have with introducing additional "legal money" is enforcement. I think there are plenty of creative ways we could funnel legitimate money towards the players but feel like we don't have anything close to the infrastructure in place to police it.

My sticking point is larger than that though, I have a place to watch professional athletes play for $$, I want to also have a place to watch schools compete against each other with the student body. I do think people use the fear of being outspent as a motivator for fighting the payment options I just don't see it that way. I enjoy the idea (even if in some of the extreme cases it is only lip service) of college athletics and think we lose more than we gain by converting into a "Junior League".

 

[awbuzz]

What stops a booster from approaching an athlete and simply overpaying by $50K for a players autograph and chalking that up to "market value"

This is the scenario that gives me pause.

Nothing stops it... that's the crappy part of it.

Go Euro, China, G League, D League, F League or whatever. No one is putting a gun to their head to go to college. Sue the NBA if you think you think you should have to be 19 and out of high school a year. But the current "legal" / "NCAA rules" set up are more that n adequate if enforced.

Nail those that break the rules with multi-year (3 or 4 years) scholarship reductions and Tourney $'s bans. Unless of course they are UNCheat, LouisHookerville, UCLA

 

[Peacone36]

Short answer - Nothing stops them, but at least it's registered, transparent, & taxable income.

Longer answer - kids can do autograph sessions, they have to establish a price for each autograph, and earn the money. So if the kid sets the price at $50 and a booster wants to use that as cover to give the kid $50,000, he's gotta deliver 1,000 autographs. Then the kid needs to declare it as taxable income.

If someone is willing to pay you for personal services of some sort, the services need to be delivered & taxed.

I appreciate the answer.

My rebut would be that that leaves a lot of margain to **** around in

 

[awbuzz]

Appreciate the discussion, I don't take these things personally. I come to boards like this one to engage in thoughtful conversation with people about the issues surrounding GT in sports. I actually would be interested in a compromise solution that enabled the market to bear the load of the additional financial compensation a player could derive but I struggle to envision a scenario that would be better enforced than the world we live in today. As Peacone notes above this post - the issue I have with introducing additional "legal money" is enforcement. I think there are plenty of creative ways we could funnel legitimate money towards the players but feel like we don't have anything close to the infrastructure in place to police it.

My sticking point is larger than that though, I have a place to watch professional athletes play for $$, I want to also have a place to watch schools compete against each other with the student body. I do think people use the fear of being outspent as a motivator for fighting the payment options I just don't see it that way. I enjoy the idea (even if in some of the extreme cases it is only lip service) of college athletics and think we lose more than we gain by converting into a "Junior League".

^^^ Amen! Preach on!!

 

[MidtownJacket]

Short answer - Nothing stops them, but at least it's registered, transparent, & taxable income.

Longer answer - kids can do autograph sessions, they have to establish a price for each autograph, and earn the money. So if the kid sets the price at $50 and a booster wants to use that as cover to give the kid $50,000, he's gotta deliver 1,000 autographs. Then the kid needs to declare it as taxable income.

If someone is willing to pay you for personal services of some sort, the services need to be delivered & taxed.

This is a great use case for my broader point. The additional infrastructure required for this would be huge. The compliance departments would need to work with CPAs and tax attorneys, etc etc.

I do think baseball has managed to avoid alot of these issues (likely because in all honesty the college level doesn't sniff the $$ Football and basketball bring, but I guess I am old fashioned and like the sense that the kid making the game winning play is more like Lammers working on his ME degree and less like a random PG at XXXX school faking his way through a year of "academic" studies.

I also do not mean to suggest you DTM, or anyone else for that matter, doesn't enjoy college sports for these same reasons. I think I just prioritize that part higher than the majority of people I have interacted with who want to pay players. I do understand they forfeit money making opportunities to play at the college level, but they also get S&C programs, room, board, school, coaching, travel to tournaments, exposure, development, alumni networks, medical care, etc.

 

[MidtownJacket]

I will say - at risk of derailing the conversation - that I think we have to see the NCAA make a definitive decision on which way to go.

It is shameful that some programs allow kids to be set up for extreme failure (bringing in kids who are not academically prepared for college level classes and ignoring the ignorance as opposed to throwing tutoring and study hall and whatever else is needed to teach them the material). My bigger issue is that the conversation around that type of actual malfeasance and exploitation is ignoring during these discussions.

ESPN et al. are incentivized to get clicks so I understand them wanting to rail against injustice but to my mind the better fight to pick is with the lack of rigor and academic standards which some D1 schools have.

 

[RonJohn]

ESPN et al. are incentivized to get clicks so I understand them wanting to rail against injustice but to my mind the better fight to pick is with the lack of rigor and academic standards which some D1 schools have.

I would say if you want to look at injustice, you should look from the bottom up. Look at college students who aren't good enough to be recruited, but are good enough to walk on and play on the practice team. Those guys are doing all of the work as the top guys, but are also paying their way though school.

If you look a step up from that, you get to guys who will not make the NBA. Maybe they won't even play pro in another country. The schools use them and don't push them to develop academically or in life. Those guys get discarded after four years eligibility and don't even have the start of a college education to help them professionally.

NCAA schools should absolutely stop acting as defacto minor-league systems. They say that they don't do that now, but it is very obvious by the actions of many schools that they are doing that exactly.

 

[MidtownJacket]

I would say if you want to look at injustice, you should look from the bottom up. Look at college students who aren't good enough to be recruited, but are good enough to walk on and play on the practice team. Those guys are doing all of the work as the top guys, but are also paying their way though school.

If you look a step up from that, you get to guys who will not make the NBA. Maybe they won't even play pro in another country. The schools use them and don't push them to develop academically or in life. Those guys get discarded after four years eligibility and don't even have the start of a college education to help them professionally.

NCAA schools should absolutely stop acting as defacto minor-league systems. They say that they don't do that now, but it is very obvious by the actions of many schools that they are doing that exactly.

I agree with this, thanks for taking the time to write it out. The mission should be to provide education to these kids. Somewhere along the way that got lost.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dtm1997]

@MidtownJacket good convo. Busy this evening to provide thoughtful response, but hope to do so in the morning.

 

[CuseJacket]

Let's say the NCAA is an employer of athletes.

Coming out of HS you currently have several choices, including but not limited to:

• Work in the US while getting an education, but with restrictive earning potential (NCAA)
• Work in the US for a low entry salary but with the ability to get any "market value" you deserve as a side hustle (G-League)
• Work abroad in any number of countries and earn a 6 figure salary and get any "market value" you deserve as a side hustle (Euro, China, etc.)
• Be an entrepreneur and start your own business with others (closest example is LaVar Ball's thing). Difficult to do in 1 year admittedly.

If money is your real priority and given those choices, why would you sign up for the first option? And then why would you choose that option and then scream "it's not fair" when you know the rules of engagement going in? And why is it on the NCAA, universities, or whomever to change their policies?

If the NCAA changes its rules, so be it. I don't have a strong opinion on that. But no one is forcing HS athletes to work for the NCAA.

My bonus every year with my current employer is discretionary. Frankly so is my salary when it comes down to it. My employer can choose to give me $0 if they want. But there is nothing obligating them to pay me more, and I knew that coming in. I can b**** if I want to, but who is responsible for my current situation?

 

[MWBATL]

Dumb question....how could you really pay the players with Title IX and not get hammered?

 

[Buzzzard]

Dumb question....how could you really pay the players with Title IX and not get hammered?

I can hear the "War on Women" chants now.

 

[RamblinRed]

Dumb question....how could you really pay the players with Title IX and not get hammered?

I don't think you can.
That is why any plan to 'pay' players imo has to occur outside of the schools themselves. I don't think they can pay the players.
i don't think any arrangement that is eventually agreed to will have the players being paid by the colleges. I think the colleges would be opposed to that set up and there are alot of legal issues that would have to be worked through.