Idea of paying players

[TigerHorn 1,351]

CA is trying to force the issue of paying college athletes. If it sticks there, it will become national very quickly.

https://www.foxnews.com/sports/ncaa-tells-california-governor-college-athlete-fair-pay-bill-is-unconstitutional

I could see this breaking D1 into two camps, if it is not overturned:

1. Bammers and tOSU's of the world become full on NFL/NBA farm teams, shoe contracts for top recruits, etc. I could see Saban walking into a recruit's house flanked by reps from Nike and Dodge (gotta keep up the Charger pipeline!). They are all but that now, this would just throw away the facade. The athletic departments of these schools would be increasingly independent from the university. 

2. Some subset of schools that will never be able to compete or simply don't want to compromise their mission move to something like a DIII model, with true student athletes and the main sports being more akin to club sports. Admissions standards rise to meet those of the general student body, average quality of athlete falls off a bit. 

Where does AU land? We would have to stop playing any of our rivals that chose route 1.  I may be in a minority, but I think JHS would still fill up regardless of the level of athlete on the field, so long as we were winning in whatever realm we chose to live in. As CPD put it, Auburn people are fans of Auburn. 

[TigerEyez13 46]

The school should not pay the athlete. Let the money come from endorsements or boosters. Market values will reach a limit as to who gets paid and how much. It is the only fair way to let gifted athletes benefit as to their perceived value. Other guys will just have to play for the scholarship as it is now. It will end underground cheating and put it all in the public view.

 

This may seem unfair to smaller schools. But the scales are already tilted. The only difference will be that athletes can benefit directly and openly without fear of repercussions.

Heck, even athletes at smaller schools will get money from boosters who want to win their conference.

[looney 794]

I'm still surprised there's been no migration toward a minor league type of system MLB uses. (Kids get drafted out of high school and can decide to continue on to college or get a "decent" wage playing the game while living a more football-centric lifestyle.)

I imagine NFL teams would LOVE to have more control over a high-school-aged kid's development from 18-21, as opposed to having to un-learn them when they're drafted.

Of course the NCAA would try to find some legal grounds to fight that process, given the huge blow to the cash windfall they'd take from having the cream of their talent pool skimmed off by a NFL AAA league. But I also think that purifies - for lack of a better word - the collegiate "C" in NCAA and would take a lot of the vitriol out of today's college football culture, knowing that the kids who are playing really are doing it (mostly) for the academics... with some, but much less, focus on eventually getting to the NFL.

Increased parity by way of skimming off the top like that could actually be a good thing for college football.

[McLoofus 35,182]

33 minutes ago, TigerHorn said:

Where does AU land? We would have to stop playing any of our rivals that chose route 1.  

I vehemently disagree with that.

We are historically a top-15 school and we are recently (last 4 years) a top 7 school in recruiting. We spend the 14th-most in the country on recruiting. (Good on ya, Gus, for a great ROI!)

We pay our coach $7 million a year.

We are a football factory school. We are a big dog in this business. I can't imagine thinking otherwise. 

 

[toddc 13,194]

NCAA has put out a statement saying their athletes would no longer be able to compete and would be ruled ineligible. Can’t find it right now, but I heard or read somewhere.

[dyehardfanAU 2,117]

This will lead to funneling money to players more easily than the under the table methods currently used.  The schools with the wealthier fan bases/boosters will have an even larger advantage in recruiting than they already have.

[toddc 13,194]

NCAA sends letter to California governor, urging him to veto bill that would allow college athletes to be paid

• By Matt Norlander 
• 21h ago

The 72-0 sweep vote Monday evening by California's State Assembly on a bill that would give protection -- and liberation -- to student-athletes in that state to earn money off their name, image and likenesshas prompted a pressing response from the NCAA to California Gov. Gavin Newsom.

On Wednesday morning the NCAA publicly released its 327-word letter that was also sent directly to Newsom (in advance of the bill being placed in his hands for approval or veto) asking him to reject the measure. The Assembly Appropriations Committee in California's Senate is expected to vote in favor of SB 206 -- also known as the Fair Pay to Play Act -- this week and from there all it would need to be enacted into law is Newsom's signature of approval.

If that happens, the law would take effect Jan. 1, 2023. 

Current NCAA bylaws state that any programs that roster student-athletes who accept money or benefits from outside interests are in violation of NCAA amateurism rules. As a result, those student-athletes would be subject to having their NCAA eligibility voided, not to mention their teams' eligibility for NCAA championship competition potentially eliminated. The NCAA is urging Newsom to veto the bill in an effort to dodge a logistical headache, stating the SB 206 would "eliminate the element of fairness that supports all of college sports."

It also would bring a factor of professionalism to collegiate athletics which, from the players' side of things, has never been part of the NCAA's core mission. Going hand in hand with such an evolution, the NCAA also warned against a recruiting advantage for universities in the state of California. 

 

While the NCAA acknowledges that there is ongoing examination on how to update its rules regarding name, image and likeness, it also reiterates that any forthcoming amendments in NCAA legislation would not condone a system in which athletes could be explicitly paid to play. 

That philosophical stance is in contrast of the spirit and intention with SB 206, and if Newsom signs California's bill into law, it could inevitably lead to multiple high-profile court battles in the coming years.

Below in full is the letter written by the NCAA Board of Governors, which includes NCAA President Mark Emmert:  

Governor Newsom: 
 
The 1,100 schools that make up the NCAA have always, in everything we do, supported a level playing field for all student-athletes. This core belief extends to each member college and university in every state across the nation. 
 
California Senate Bill 206 would upend that balance. If the bill becomes law and California's 58 NCAA schools are compelled to allow an unrestricted name, image and likeness scheme, it would erase the critical distinction between college and professional athletics and, because it gives those schools an unfair recruiting advantage, would result in them eventually being unable to compete in NCAA competitions. These outcomes are untenable and would negatively impact more than 24,000 California student-athletes across three divisions. 
 
Right now, nearly half a million student-athletes in all 50 states compete under the same rules. This bill would remove that essential element of fairness and equal treatment that forms the bedrock of college sports. 

The NCAA continues to focus on the best interests of all student-athletes nationwide. NCAA member schools already are working on changing rules for all student-athletes to appropriately use their name, image and likeness in accordance with our values — but not pay them to play. The NCAA has consistently stood by its belief that student-athletes are students first, and they should not be employees of the university. 

It isn't possible to resolve the challenges of today's college sports environment in this way — by one state taking unilateral action. With more than 1,100 schools and nearly 500,000 student-athletes across the nation, the rules and policies of college sports must be established through the Association's collaborative governance system. A national model of collegiate sport requires mutually agreed upon rules. 
 
We urge the state of California to reconsider this harmful and, we believe, unconstitutional bill and hope the state will be a constructive partner in our efforts to develop a fair name, image and likeness approach for all 50 states. 
 
Sincerely,  
Members of the NCAA Board of Governors 

The language above clearly exposes how dire the NCAA views this issue. But California Sen. Nancy Skinner has said that SB 206 was put on a timeline of 2023 for the explicit purpose of giving the NCAA and schools around the country more than enough time to adjust and update/amend bylaws. That timeline -- nearly 40 months between now and Jan. 1, 2023 -- was not addressed in the NCAA's letter. 

If the bill passes, California could be the first in a domino effect with other states. Washington and Colorado are also considering similar legislation, according to a report from The New York Times, and senators from Connecticut and North Carolina are also currently exploring ways at the federal level to empower student-athletes and force the NCAA to modernize its oft-criticized rules on amateurism. 

[toddc 13,194]

The NFL tried the farm league last year and it failed before finishing the season. AAF

[aucanucktiger 1,794]

NCAA arguing that Cal legislation violates constitution is like Saban complaining about unfair recruiting tactics.

[leglessdan 1,934]

IMO it would ruin college football. I could support a weekly or monthly stipend distributed evenly across the NCAA,  but anything above that IMO would just cause strife in the locker rooms. The ones that put in the effort and excel usually get a shot at the NFL, usually. Nothing is guaranteed,  but at the end of the day, they have a degree that can propel them with an advantage that many,many kids don't get the opportunity to have. Not to mention,  they are being trained in their craft by professionals for free on top of that. I don't know, just seems like a slippery slope to me.

[dyehardfanAU 2,117]

1 minute ago, leglessdan said:

IMO it would ruin college football. I could support a weekly or monthly stipend distributed evenly across the NCAA,  but anything above that IMO would just cause strife in the locker rooms. The ones that put in the effort and excel usually get a shot at the NFL, usually. Nothing is guaranteed,  but at the end of the day, they have a degree that can propel them with an advantage that many,many kids don't get the opportunity to have. Not to mention,  they are being trained in their craft by professionals for free on top of that. I don't know, just seems like a slippery slope to me.

There are multiple problems with stipends.  Smaller schools would be at a financial disadvantage plus you would run into Title IX issues where athletes in all sports would have to receive the stipend putting even more financial strain on programs.

[toddc 13,194]

8 minutes ago, dyehardfanAU said:

There are multiple problems with stipends.  Smaller schools would be at a financial disadvantage plus you would run into Title IX issues where athletes in all sports would have to receive the stipend putting even more financial strain on programs.

Stipends would have to come from a “fund “ that all schools put money into and distributed by a national NCAA group. There would then have to be a way to figure out how much each athlete received. It would be a nightmare! Leave it alone.

[dyehardfanAU 2,117]

1 minute ago, toddc said:

Stipends would have to come from a “fund “ that all schools put money into and distributed by a national NCAA group. There would then have to be a way to figure out how much each athlete received. It would be a nightmare! Leave it alone.

It's not like athletes aren't currently compensated.  Tuitition, room, board, athletic training, nutrition programs, medical benefits, etc.  Football players receive hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of compensation over their tenure at a university, it's just not direct financial renumeration.  If they want to be compensated financially then they can start paying for some of these benefits out of pocket.

[WalkingCarpet 1,379]

Aren't we going to run into Title IX issues with this new legislation? Football players and male basketball players are obviously going to be the beneficiaries of this law and women and non-rev sport athletes aren't going to get anything. If a few years these same legislators are going to be clamoring for new laws to make sure all athletes are getting the same cut. Then they'll pat themselves on the back for fixing a problem they helped create. I'm not for athletes getting paid directly, but I think it might work if these funds went into a savings account that the player isn't allowed to touch until they either graduate or exhaust their eligibility. 

[leglessdan 1,934]

15 minutes ago, dyehardfanAU said:

There are multiple problems with stipends.  Smaller schools would be at a financial disadvantage plus you would run into Title IX issues where athletes in all sports would have to receive the stipend putting even more financial strain on programs.

While that is true,  what do you think will happen to the small schools when you start allowing outside agencies to swarm these athletes? We see what it does to the NFL. I just don't know if there's an equal solution to any of it.

[McLoofus 35,182]

Maybe the NCAA's missing a great opportunity for a massive new revenue stream. Just popped into my head and haven't thought it through *at all*, but maybe they set up an online marketplace that they control and allow athletes to do business on there? And they keep a percentage of the profits? 

Limit order quantities. Use Captcha to combat booster-funded robots. Etc. etc. 

I know that strict regulation would be a struggle and it would still favor teams with larger fanbases but at least it would approximate a meritocracy and facilitate athletes doing business directly with fans in 1-to-1(ish) interaction and legitimately profiting off their own name and likeness. 

As for the recruiting angle, a 5* guy might think twice about sharing the pie with a bunch of other 5*s at bama when he could go to Directional U and have 99% market share. 

[WarTim 3,456]

“The word amateur comes from Latin (to love).....Once you get paid, you can’t call it Love anymore”.  Robert Tyre Jones (Bobby).......

[fredst 9,064]

56 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Good on ya, Gus, for a great ROI!

Lol. You never miss a chance do you Loof😜?

[Auburn2Eugene 2,317]

The NCAA is a pitiful excuse for a governing body. For a long time we have been at a point where I felt the schools were just waiting for someone to make a move. 

This could very well be the spark that destroys the NCAA as we know and (generally) dislike it today. 

Personally I see nothing wrong with players being able to make money off their likeness. Be it a football player who gets a check from EA  for their likeness being used on a video game, or a water polo player who is wanting to make posters with their pictures on it and offering swimming lessons. 

 

It doesn't have to go as far as having Nike and Dodge reps at players homes on recruiting visits. 

There is a difference in student athletes being paid for their likeness and all out minor professional league. And this bill is about being paid for their likeness.

[McLoofus 35,182]

7 minutes ago, fredst said:

Lol. You never miss a chance do you Loof😜?

It's true. I never miss a chance to offer a genuine opinion on the guy, good or bad. 

#onion #layers

[gravejd 3,270]

This is what happens when you resist change. You lose control of the whole thing and lose any control you could have had over the changes that are bound to come. 

Players will be getting paid in the near future. The NCAA needs to except that and evolve with it and find a way to still exist in this new world. I think this could be a good thing. I think it will actually level the playing field if done correctly. There has to be some control over what players can make when getting paid by a school. If you set that to a manageable number then i think some of the other smaller schools will be able to manage. Though some will for sure not be able to manage and will go to smaller classifications. 

I don't have all the answers but i hope someone is getting paid to figure out how we can pay the players and still keep the feel of college football. We can't have millionaires running around playing college football and keep any semblance of the sport we love.....that doesn't mean we can't figure out a way to pay players 

[boisnumber1 2,819]

Stupid move by CA legislators - imagine that. Let's make all of our athletes ineligible. Do they think they are the first ones to come up with this idea? Pretty funny to me actually. When/if this actually does happen, college football will crash and burn, and the majority of people will not care about it anymore. No one cares about the minor leagues...i dont care how you dress it up.

[Sizzle 3,913]

College athletics already aren’t amateur sports, especially not CFB. These big tv deals and coaches making millions? Nothing amateur about that. The performers might as well get paid too. Everyone bringing up tuition etc.. even with that it’s still not an even trade

[WDE_OxPx_2010 5,297]

This doesn't have to be an issue- just wait to pay athletes AFTER they turn pro. Put the money that they "earn" through likeness and endorsements in a trust account and pay it out gradually to the players that earn the money AFTER they lose eligibility.

 

Problem solved.

[McLoofus 35,182]

2 minutes ago, Sizzle said:

College athletics already aren’t amateur sports, especially not CFB. These big tv deals and coaches making millions? Nothing amateur about that. The performers might as well get paid too. Everyone bringing up tuition etc.. even with that it’s still not an even trade

Thank you.

It's absolutely insane how people are totally fine with coaches going where ever the w$nd blow$ them but suddenly it's a problem when the players whose careers those coaches hold in their hands get a cut? The ones whose bodies are literally on the line and without whom the sport would cease to exist?

One group has no skin in the game and the other group has literal skin in the game, but the first group thinks they should decide what would or wouldn't ruin the sport? I don't get it.

By the way, I'm sure a lot of people thought the forward pass, facemasks and integration would ruin the sport, too.