NCAA Threatens California Schools

[around4ever 4,139]

5 hours ago, McLoofus said:

So then what's the problem?

The problem is about half of P5 schools have the boosters and supporters who could pay the big bucks to the stars.  The rest of the D1 schools would get weaker by not having the boosters who are able to pay.  Then, what do you do about Title IX and non revenue sports?   Big boosters are not going to pay those athletes. 

[AU64 10,122]

1 hour ago, around4ever said:

The problem is about half of P5 schools have the boosters and supporters who could pay the big bucks to the stars.  T

Probably not even half could be "competitive" in a battle against the blue bloods of the major sports.   

Would not take long before it would be common knowledge that if you go to school X or Y...... the alums will take care of you.    No matter how the NCAA might try to limit or write the rules, there are smart people who can exploit the technicalities …..and recruiting becomes a bidding war for the 5* recruits.  Pay me now or pay me later…..would be easy to beat even a system that deferred the payments until after the player leaves and is no longer under jurisdiction of the NCAA.

[abw0004 10,108]

14 hours ago, aujeff11 said:

Appreciate it man. You say you go to every game so you must do well.

I just really love Auburn.  I even am going to have in my will to get buried in Auburn.  My future wife is going to have to deal with that.  And I am going to invite the most pessimistic posters on this forum to be my pallbearers so they can let me down one more time.

[aujeff11 6,243]

5 minutes ago, abw0004 said:

And I am going to invite the most pessimistic posters on this forum to be my pallbearers so they can let me down one more time.

[AUsince72 11,084]

16 hours ago, McLoofus said:

16 hours ago, abw0004 said:

Are you indirectly referring to my post?

I didn't read your post.

 

[DAG 33,955]

16 hours ago, McLoofus said:

I didn't read your post.

I don’t know why this made me laugh but it did. Probably a little too much.

[McLoofus 35,182]

12 hours ago, AU64 said:

Probably not even half could be "competitive" in a battle against the blue bloods of the major sports.   

Would not take long before it would be common knowledge that if you go to school X or Y...... the alums will take care of you.    No matter how the NCAA might try to limit or write the rules, there are smart people who can exploit the technicalities …..and recruiting becomes a bidding war for the 5* recruits.  Pay me now or pay me later…..would be easy to beat even a system that deferred the payments until after the player leaves and is no longer under jurisdiction of the NCAA.

And this is different from the current status quo how?

[McLoofus 35,182]

13 hours ago, around4ever said:

The problem is about half of P5 schools have the boosters and supporters who could pay the big bucks to the stars.  The rest of the D1 schools would get weaker by not having the boosters who are able to pay.

This is already the case. Hundred dollar handshakes, facilities, superior coaching, higher profile for NFL scouts, the ability to induce high school staffs to steer their kids in a certain direction, putting on expensive, flashy camps attended by NFL coaches... The power programs already have and exploit massive built-in advantages. Again, look at the teams that have recruited the best the last year, the last 4 years, the last 20 years... they're all pretty much the same. 

Also, are the power programs suddenly going to have more scholarships available? How are they going to sign every blue chip player and leave none for the rest?

Are these limitless endowments and booster funds going to pay more for their 14th or 15th 4* in a recruiting class than a lower tier school might pay for the only 4* recruit that they're going to get? And which, again, is about the same as what they're currently getting?

Are the power programs going to keep paying for kids who don't produce? Maybe if a kid knew that he could transfer to Iowa State and sell 10x more jerseys because he'd be the BMOC there....

13 hours ago, around4ever said:

Then, what do you do about Title IX and non revenue sports?   Big boosters are not going to pay those athletes. 

Why does this matter?

 

 

 

 

[Mikey 16,550]

28 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Why does this matter?

I thought the entire point of allowing the super stars to become rich while in college was for the benefit of the athlete? This scheme, if done honestly, would benefit maybe a dozen or so over the nation while doing absolutely nothing for the remaining thousands. In any case, honest or not, the non-revenue sport athletes will not get any benefit from this. This poor idea solves the problem for a few and leaves the vast majority in the same shape they are in right now.

Something practical should and will be done in the near future, but benefiting a handful of super stars while ignoring the other thousands of college athletes is not the way to go about it. This scheme solves nothing and encourages corruption.

[McLoofus 35,182]

3 minutes ago, Mikey said:

I thought the entire point of allowing the super stars to become rich while in college was for the benefit of the athlete? This scheme, if done honestly, would benefit maybe a dozen or so over the nation while doing absolutely nothing for the remaining thousands.

Man. I have to believe that your ignorance of the conversation is feigned and not genuine.

If people. Are currently making money. Off a player's name. But that player cannot make money. Off his or her own name. Then that is wrong.

If a player's name doesn't already sell jerseys, then why would they deserve to make money off of other players' names? Of course, maybe they can find other ways to make money in which they are not currently allowed to. 

I didn't realize you were such a socialist and so vehemently against free market capitalism. I don't have a problem with that at all. Just surprises me. 

Now, there's a different conversation to be had about schools paying all athletes a stipend or salary or whatever. I happen to think that it could and should be done but it is definitely a different conversation. 

 

[abw0004 10,108]

1 hour ago, AUsince72 said:

 

 

Fine!  I'm taking my ball and going home then. ⬇️

 

[aujeff11 6,243]

11 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

If people. Are currently making money. Off a player's name. But that player cannot make money. Off his or her own name. Then that is wrong.

So you’re saying Zion is worth today what he would’ve been worth as a HS senior? 

13 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

If a player's name doesn't already sell jerseys, then why would they deserve to make money off of other players' names? 

Superstars in college cannot “already”  sell jerseys. Not sure why you went here. 

15 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

I didn't realize you were such a socialist and so vehemently against free market capitalism. I don't have a problem with that at all. Just surprises me

It’s not and has never been about socialism. It’s about team chemistry. Not to mention other conflicting consequences that may come from it which may include injury, legal issues, and opportunism motivated likeness agents vulturing vulnerable athletes. Lonzo Ball got millions swindled from him because  his pseudo-entrepreneur dad wasn’t smart enough to see the red flags. Luckily for him he was already making millions in the NBA. You want these athletes to go through that? You want agents in the coaches ear because their client isn’t getting enough playing time to justify “likeness” opportunities, much less the need for an agent on retainer? The schools can financially guide their athletes but they shouldn’t be held accountable for individual mistakes. Which, of course, I’m sure that will be your bleeding heart’s next gripe. 

[WarDamnEagleWDE 12,737]

18 hours ago, McLoofus said:

I *hate* that people call it a "free" education.

It's interesting to me that so many people are so worried about what the problems might be if a change is made when we all know that there already is a problem and it screws the only people who actually play the games.

And, once again, lol at people saying that some teams are suddenly going to have a recruiting advantage. What the hell have you been paying attention to the last 60 years? Not college football. There is already a small group of schools that spend a lot more money and get better players than everyone else and it's been like that for decades. 

I'm all for bumping up the money already given in the stipends. If you get into paying kids for their likeness or such you are going to lose the integrity of the game. Also have the big elite schools distance themselves from the others even more. As the playing field will be tilted even more in their favor. You pay the football players you are going to have to pay all of the athletes the same. Title 9 is a law. This isn't pro sports and the pro sports rules don't imply here. Most university are owned by the state. So now you have state laws involved and not to mention the IRS wanting it's share.  So the bama, Michigan, Texas ect are going to have a field day with this. They have the cash to pay all of this AND build elite facilities and pay for elite coaches and staff. Plus the other money that is on the side.

We are going to see the cash dry up a bunch from these TV deals. The ESPN cash is going to dry up a bunch. It's already was over the top. The SEC Network isn't going to be able to keep up the huge checks it gives to the schools in a few years. Still going to be some great money but not what you see now. It's a bubble that is going to burst.

 

 

[WarDamnEagleWDE 12,737]

14 hours ago, AU64 said:

Probably not even half could be "competitive" in a battle against the blue bloods of the major sports.   

Would not take long before it would be common knowledge that if you go to school X or Y...... the alums will take care of you.    No matter how the NCAA might try to limit or write the rules, there are smart people who can exploit the technicalities …..and recruiting becomes a bidding war for the 5* recruits.  Pay me now or pay me later…..would be easy to beat even a system that deferred the payments until after the player leaves and is no longer under jurisdiction of the NCAA.

Yes it will. Be a guarantee or something in place to insure that said recruit will get paid a lot. So the schools like bama, Michigan ect will have the backing of say Nike that will guarantee selling this amount of "likeness" . 100k or more to the player. I could go on with this.

[McLoofus 35,182]

3 minutes ago, WarDamnEagleWDE said:

I'm all for bumping up the money already given in the stipends. If you get into paying kids for their likeness or such you are going to lose the integrity of the game. Also have the big elite schools distance themselves from the others even more. As the playing field will be tilted even more in their favor.

Respectfully disagree.

Quote

You pay the football players you are going to have to pay all of the athletes the same. Title 9 is a law. This isn't pro sports and the pro sports rules don't imply here. Most university are owned by the state. So now you have state laws involved and not to mention the IRS wanting it's share. 

If we're talking about schools paying players, then yes, I agree. But that's a different conversation. 

Quote

So the bama, Michigan, Texas ect are going to have a field day with this. They have the cash to pay all of this AND build elite facilities and pay for elite coaches and staff. Plus the other money that is on the side.

Again, they already are. And they still only have 25 scholarships a year. How much further ahead can they get? According to 247, the top 10 teams in the country could sign nothing but 4* and 5* players and there would still be 100 4* kids left over.

Also, why are we acting like even bama is going to be willing to guarantee a certain level of jersey sales, signed autographs, whatever for every scholarship on their roster? How can they guarantee that the 25th 4* on their recruiting board will make more money playing for them than he would being the BMOC at, say, West Virginia or Nebraska? Rashaan Evans might have been the greatest player in 10 years at a school like that. He was just the next man up at bama. 

14 minutes ago, WarDamnEagleWDE said:

We are going to see the cash dry up a bunch from these TV deals. The ESPN cash is going to dry up a bunch. It's already was over the top. The SEC Network isn't going to be able to keep up the huge checks it gives to the schools in a few years. Still going to be some great money but not what you see now. It's a bubble that is going to burst.

I agree with that. Doesn't really pertain to this conversation for me, though. 

[WalkingCarpet 1,379]

5 minutes ago, WarDamnEagleWDE said:

Yes it will. Be a guarantee or something in place to insure that said recruit will get paid a lot. So the schools like bama, Michigan ect will have the backing of say Nike that will guarantee selling this amount of "likeness" . 100k or more to the player. I could go on with this.

I've had this thought for a while now, I have no problem letting the kids profit off their likeness and name but the money should go into a savings account they can't touch until they either graduate, exhaust their eligibility, or turn professional. Cap the amount that can be entered into the account at something like $25,000 per academic year and require paper trails and receipts for every deposit like the way insurance companies treat Flexible Spending Accounts.  Trust me, I hate the idea of "paying players" but at the same time it's incredibly unfair that the schools, conferences, NCAA, and TV networks can make money off the athletes but they can't make money off themselves. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

2 minutes ago, WalkingCarpet said:

I've had this thought for a while now, I have no problem letting the kids profit off their likeness and name but the money should go into a savings account they can't touch until they either graduate, exhaust their eligibility, or turn professional. Cap the amount that can be entered into the account at something like $25,000 per academic year and require paper trails and receipts for every deposit like the way insurance companies treat Flexible Spending Accounts.  Trust me, I hate the idea of "paying players" but at the same time it's incredibly unfair that the schools, conferences, NCAA, and TV networks can make money off the athletes but they can't make money off themselves. 

See? Look how many ideas we on this forum can come up with.

Invent ways to do it. Don't invent reasons not to. 

[abw0004 10,108]

9 minutes ago, WalkingCarpet said:

I've had this thought for a while now, I have no problem letting the kids profit off their likeness and name but the money should go into a savings account they can't touch until they either graduate, exhaust their eligibility, or turn professional. Cap the amount that can be entered into the account at something like $25,000 per academic year and require paper trails and receipts for every deposit like the way insurance companies treat Flexible Spending Accounts.  Trust me, I hate the idea of "paying players" but at the same time it's incredibly unfair that the schools, conferences, NCAA, and TV networks can make money off the athletes but they can't make money off themselves. 

That can still be very tricky.  The FSA and HSA accounts you refer to have a lot of federal laws behind it.  There still would be ways to cover your tracks with the savings account, not to mention those are still taxable (IRS wants those pennies!) so the IRS will come into play again.  I believe the stipends route is really the only non-sticky avenue which makes the most sense as well.  If we do end up paying in some form, I suggest to use my example on the previous page in a blind trust because companies that these boosters are associated with can get a lot of different agencies hammering down.  Does that make sense?

[McLoofus 35,182]

19 minutes ago, WarDamnEagleWDE said:

Yes it will. Be a guarantee or something in place to insure that said recruit will get paid a lot. So the schools like bama, Michigan ect will have the backing of say Nike that will guarantee selling this amount of "likeness" . 100k or more to the player. I could go on with this.

So Oregon should have the best team in the country, right?

Notre Dame?

Who will come out on top in the state of Florida?

I bet recruiting will pick up massively for other national brands such as the service academies. Maybe even some of the Ivy League schools with their massive endowments (hehe) and wealthy alumni will get in on the action. 

How will it affect mid-market blue bloods like Oklahoma?

What about other sports? Will schools like Michigan and Ohio State go straight to being top 5 in every sport?

How will a kid choose one Nike or Under Armor school over another?

 

[WalkingCarpet 1,379]

3 minutes ago, abw0004 said:

That can still be very tricky.  The FSA and HSA accounts you refer to have a lot of federal laws behind it.  There still would be ways to cover your tracks with the savings account, not to mention those are still taxable (IRS wants those pennies!) so the IRS will come into play again.  I believe the stipends route is really the only non-sticky avenue which makes the most sense as well.  If we do end up paying in some form, I suggest to use my example on the previous page in a blind trust because companies that these boosters are associated with can get a lot of different agencies hammering down.  Does that make sense?

I know there's a million different laws governing every aspect of insurance, I was just using FSAs as an example because that's something my family is used to dealing with. I just want this thing to be as transparent as it can be so we don't accidentally increase the amount of corruption and under the table dealings that exist in college sports. I'm all for constructive criticism and tweaking things.

[abw0004 10,108]

Just to quickly chime in.  It will be very tricky for schools to pay on their behalf or for alumni.  The reason being is you could potentially lose your tax-status as a  501(c)(3) and donors would not receive a tax-break in donating.  Schools would not want to lose this status for the academic (and main part) of the school.  A way around it is to consider the athlete as an employee, but then the "amateur" status is now gone and no longer in good standing the the NCAA.  That only leaves an option of corporations running the funding, and since they are not a part of the university could still remain tricky.

The only option is the stipend, which schools do already.  Auburn is second in the country in the largest stipend at $5,586 just behind Tennessee.  Introduce laws to increase this and you leave out a lot of the mess.  I would still require a personal finance class.  

17 minutes ago, WalkingCarpet said:

I know there's a million different laws governing every aspect of insurance, I was just using FSAs as an example because that's something my family is used to dealing with. I just want this thing to be as transparent as it can be so we don't accidentally increase the amount of corruption and under the table dealings that exist in college sports. I'm all for constructive criticism and tweaking things.

Just as a heads up, FSA and HSA's are not insurance.  They are tax-free savings accounts for medical expenses that you can contribute up to $3,500 for people under 50 years old and an extra $1,000 over that.  It is the only true tax-free vehicle out there and I definitely recommend for everyone to use them.  If for nothing else, to cover what you know you will pay every year regardless in medical costs like contacts, annual physicals, etc.  If you wanted to know...  

[aujeff11 6,243]

6 minutes ago, abw0004 said:

The only option is the stipend, which schools do already.  Auburn is second in the country in the largest stipend at $5,586 just behind Tennessee.

Per semester? 

[abw0004 10,108]

8 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

Per semester? 

That is correct.  To further break it down, that equates to $1,862 per month.  That would more than cover every expense and a modest car payment, not even considering the fact the university gives you the option to live in the Athletics dorms (massive apartments on their own and each room has a queen bed with a flat screen mounted on the wall) and free food on top of that.

[McLoofus 35,182]

Just a reminder, the bill in the OP merely states that athletes be allowed to receive compensation for the use of their own name, image or likeness. It doesn't have anything to do with the universities themselves, other than players would start getting a cut of merchandise sales. 

 

[Tigerbelle 5,299]

1 hour ago, WalkingCarpet said:

I've had this thought for a while now, I have no problem letting the kids profit off their likeness and name but the money should go into a savings account they can't touch until they either graduate, exhaust their eligibility, or turn professional. Cap the amount that can be entered into the account at something like $25,000 per academic year and require paper trails and receipts for every deposit like the way insurance companies treat Flexible Spending Accounts.  Trust me, I hate the idea of "paying players" but at the same time it's incredibly unfair that the schools, conferences, NCAA, and TV networks can make money off the athletes but they can't make money off themselves. 

The issue with that proposal is that most kids need the money while they are in college and unable to work outside of the time and effort spent on athletics and classes. They are not like regular students who can hold down a part time job. That would do nothing to help student athletes get through school. It takes so much more money now and they do have many of the normal expenses of living, and some have families to support. Because an athlete is earning extra money on the side does not mean the status is changed from amateur to professional anymore than a nursing student working  part time as a CNA becomes a nursing professional just because of a related job in the medical field.