Skip Bayless: Let Boosters Pay Players

[Tugg Speedman]

OK thanks Heisenberg.  As I said, it was unanimously overturned on appeal.

See the last two highlighted paragraphs above ... you cite it as a "perfectly legal" law as if it has the same moral authority as something written in the bible (think: the ten commandments). 

Instead it is probably best described as Jay Bee's favorite movie genre ... "barely legal."

[GGGG]

You are the master at using nuance to never concede you were wrong.

You said it was "narrowly" overturned on appeal.  It was unanimously overturned.  It is legal to discriminate by age, by mandating a minimum entry age, if it is part of a collectively bargained agreement.  The notion has been challenged in court and it has been upheld.

Sorry if the adjective "perfectly" annoyed you.

[NersEllenson]

I think a more apples-to-apples comparison with athletes are performers.

Concert musicians, actors, singers, dancers, etc.

In a free-market society, these people are free to pursue their professions of choice without the requirement of a college degree. Some choose to study acting, singing, violin and dance, but the professional powers-that-be who control the purse strings do not require such study. Nor do they place arbitrary age limits on the pursuit of the profession.

The NFL is a monopoly. In fact, it was ruled so in a court of law in the USFL trial - even though damages were only $1, it doesn't invalidate the ruling. If you want to earn money playing football in the United States, you have little choice but to kowtow to the monopoly. Its requirement that an athlete spend three years in college is arbitrary, unnecessary and self-serving. I would like to see some athletes fight it in court; the problem is that the deep-pocketed NFL would cause so many delays in any legal proceeding that the athlete would be at least a college junior by the time he'd get heard anyway.

A violin prodigy can play in a symphony at age 15 without one second of college training. A 10-year-old actor can get nominated for an Oscar. For that matter, a tennis pro can play in the U.S. Open at 16 without even thinking about college.

But the NFL monopoly is allowed to require its athletes to spend three years in its "minor league." Seems pretty un-American and un-free-market to me.

Now, what Bayless is proposing is a whole different discussion.

Thanks - this was the point I was trying to make.  There is nothing that prohibits a talented academic kid from passing through school quickly and earning their degree/postgraduate education and becoming trained in the skill - medicine, law, accounting, dental hygeine, whatever you want it to be - that would essentially road block them from beginning to practice their chosen professions.

Furthermore, it is so incredibly hard to be considered elite and world class at those professions right out of the gate.  Not the case with athletes, entertainers, performers.  Football is a vey unique case in that it is a game that exposes you to the highest risk of debilitating injury, that could easily end your ability to perform at a world class level in an instant.

[Dawson Rental]

I don't know what the overall ratio would be, but for every dollar a booster gave to a player there would be a sizeable portion that would be reduced to the school.  I would guess something like for every dollar maybe that is sixty less cents the school would get from a booster.  That would hit the schools pretty hard.

I agree that there would be such an effect on overall donations.  It's tricky to calculate because donations given over to recruiting star athletes should increase a school's athletic success which almost always leads to an increased pool of alumni making donations to their school and even increased donations form those already donating as a result of increased school visibility/pride.

Ultimately, it's a choice made by the school involved to be a participant in big time athletics.    In other words, it's a business decision to be made by a university that has decided to participate in the big time collegiate sports business.

[Tugg Speedman]

But the reaction to an overly regulated system isn't complete anarchy.  I am all for enhanced benefits, and I don't care one lick if scholarships for Olympic sports are diminished as a result.  I am also not opposed to athletes cashing in on their likeness in some way.

But just turning everyone loose I don't think is the answer.

I'm also not going to buy into Chico's hyperbole that its the end of the world if athletes get more money either.

I agree that anarchy is not the answer.

Thought if the "let the booster pay" system was in place ...

Booster pays a recruit to go to Rutgers.  Mike Rice is the had coach at Rutgers.  That recruit (now a player) is abused by Rice which in part throwing balls at head.  

Rice is fired and abused player wants to sue.  Question, who does he sue?  The booster than paid him or the University?  

Of course reality is he sues both but the booster bears some liability, no?  And if the boosters pay, don't they get some say in who is the head coach and AD?  Of course they do now but I'm suggesting if they pay, won't the boosters demand a committee of boosters to pick the AD and head coach? Yes the University president could be part of the committee but he would be one voice, not the voice?

Answer would be for the University to put together a player payment fund and let boosters contribute to it, not let booster run off unsupervised doing it themselves.

[MarquetteDano]

It's tricky to calculate because donations given over to recruiting star athletes should increase a school's athletic success which almost always leads to an increased pool of alumni making donations to their school and even increased donations form those already donating as a result of increased school visibility/pride.

I am not sure it would work out this way.  It is a zero sum game, as there will be losers and winners.  One university may gain while another loses.  The total of the two may see less money than they do now as a whole.

Keep in mind of the tax man, too.  Right now a booster can give $100,000 to a university and the after-tax cost to him/her is approximately $65,000-$70,000.

If you give to an individual your yearly limit is $14,000 with no tax advantages.  If you give $100,000 to a player the cost is actually around $150,000, depending on the state's inheritance rules.  Unless you want to trigger one-time exemption gifts which can limit monies to your heirs.

If you give to university pool (and the U pays the player) you still get the $65,000 after tax advantage but the value of that money will really be around $70k because that player will get taxed.

Either way, the tax man will get more money than now and the university will see less.

[brandx]

Yep.  And add teachers, dental hygieinsts and plenty of other occupations - which don't determine whether people live or die - that have minimum requirements before you can make a living.  A huge portion of our economy is filled with people who had to go to a certain amount of schooling and pass various tests to be eligible for their occupation.

Well and good. Except that it has nothing to do with Sports. You guys come up with all of these professions where the state wants to be sure that people are actually qualified. That is not necessary in Sports. The restrictions in sports are not about making sure that people are qualified. They are strictly arbitrary age restrictions.

I think most of us are adult enough to realize everything is not the same.

[forgetful]

Thanks - this was the point I was trying to make.  There is nothing that prohibits a talented academic kid from passing through school quickly and earning their degree/postgraduate education and becoming trained in the skill - medicine, law, accounting, dental hygeine, whatever you want it to be - that would essentially road block them from beginning to practice their chosen professions.

Furthermore, it is so incredibly hard to be considered elite and world class at those professions right out of the gate.  Not the case with athletes, entertainers, performers.  Football is a vey unique case in that it is a game that exposes you to the highest risk of debilitating injury, that could easily end your ability to perform at a world class level in an instant.

Except there is no firm age requirement for the NFL or NBA.  If a person is extremely talented and is able to complete college by the age of 15 (lets say just like the prodigy's in the other fields).  Then he/she is immediately eligible for the NBA or NFL draft regardless of age.

So the NFL/NBA is identical to all the others, they just have to meet the minimum requirements, either by reaching a certain age (not afforded to the other disciplines) or through meeting the minimum requirements.

[GGGG]

Except there is no firm age requirement for the NFL or NBA.  If a person is extremely talented and is able to complete college by the age of 15 (lets say just like the prodigy's in the other fields).  Then he/she is immediately eligible for the NBA or NFL draft regardless of age.

So the NFL/NBA is identical to all the others, they just have to meet the minimum requirements, either by reaching a certain age (not afforded to the other disciplines) or through meeting the minimum requirements.

Actually, in the case of the NBA, I believe that you have to turn 19 during the year the draft is held to be eligible regardless if you meet other criteria.

[Boozemon Barro]

There are lots of professions with restrictions.  I could study for years to be an expert in medicine, but not want to pay for medical school.  I would still be banned from ever practicing that trade, even if I was far superior from my independent training.

I could become an expert in the legal field and publish article after article in legal journals, but would be banned from practicing law unless I went to law school.

I could independently study scientific fields to become a world renowned expert, but at almost all prestigious universities would not be allowed to be a professor without a PhD.

These are all cases where the profession sets requirements for their field.  Much like the NFL sets a 3-year requirement.  In all those other disciplines, while you hone your craft and prove yourself, you make a tiny fraction (an instead often pay) to develop the requirements.

These kids have 0 value at this point until they play for a college.  The spotlight that gives them creates great value in some cases.

If they are a freak of nature and do have value they can go play elsewhere (aka SMU basketball player).  If there aren't alternative leagues it is because they are not marketable or profitable ventures and thus, the players actually do not have value.

The first two are highly specialized practices that have laws against what you described. If you practice medicine without a license, you will be charged with a crime.

The only thing illegal about a booster giving a recruit cash is maybe gift tax evasion which would immediately go away if everything was opened up.

[forgetful]

Actually, in the case of the NBA, I believe that you have to turn 19 during the year the draft is held to be eligible regardless if you meet other criteria.

I thought so too, but looked it up and apparently they also have the caveat that if you have exhausted your eligibility (through participating not accepting money etc), then you are eligible.

section 1(b)(ii)
(A) The player has graduated from a four-year college or university in the United States (or is to graduate in the calendar year in which the Draft is held) and has no remaining intercollegiate basketball eligibility;

[GGGG]

I thought so too, but looked it up and apparently they also have the caveat that if you have exhausted your eligibility (through participating not accepting money etc), then you are eligible.

section 1(b)(ii)
(A) The player has graduated from a four-year college or university in the United States (or is to graduate in the calendar year in which the Draft is held) and has no remaining intercollegiate basketball eligibility;

Yeah I read the same thing and thought the age limit took precedence.  No biggie because I doubt the two rules would ever come in conflict!

[ChicosBailBonds]

We have game fixing now.  We have a version of holdouts now (see ReggieSmith and McKay).

The current system is broken now.  This might make it better.

Or it might make it 10X worse, I'm going with that view.   There are legitimate arguments to be made to "fix the system", that doesn't mean destroying the entire thing and making matters worse.

Can you list the massive amount of game fixing we have going on right now....or how about 2 cases in the last 5 years would be fine?  And how is it that Reggie Smith and McKay are the ones holding out?

[forgetful]

The first two are highly specialized practices that have laws against what you described. If you practice medicine without a license, you will be charged with a crime.

The only thing illegal about a booster giving a recruit cash is maybe gift tax evasion which would immediately go away if everything was opened up.

Those laws evolved as a protective measure to stop people from entering the ranks without attending medical school.  Initially adopted by professional organizations.

Neither of those fields even required a degree for a long time, but were rather taught as apprenticeships.  The degrees came as a measure of Universities realizing they could profit from the organizations requiring a degree.  They then had to institute fancy new degrees (DM and JD), because it was required to have a doctorate level degree to teach at a  University.

So, they are not much different than professional organizations now (NFLPA, NBAPA) instituting new requirements, that benefit the universities.  As they evolve they may also then have laws (say to protect from concussions etc), reinforcing the organizational rules.

[ChicosBailBonds]

The source of my knowledge of the SEC under the table scheme is thinly based.  It's based upon the article posted here a while back called something like "The Ten Rules for Paying College Athletes" which was discussed in its own thread.

I recall it, an article about bag men on SB Nation.  Whether any of it was true, 2% true, 50% true, who knows.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Why is it required that the football and basketball teams pay for all the non revenue sports?  Is the business school required to pay for the English department?  Is the engineering program required to pay for the philosophy department?

Schools will make a determination if the want more than two sports teams (football and basketball).  My guess is the Olympic sports will be fine.

You would be dead wrong.  I wrote a thesis paper on this in grad school around Title IX and it was already impacting male Olympic sports back then in terms of performances at the Olympics and elsewhere (world championships, etc) due to limited opportunities.  That was 20+ years ago.  It most certainly continues to have an impact.

How can it not have an impact when some sports will have to be dropped in these scenarios you guys keep coming up with?  There is no choice but to drop some sports if some of these scenarios come to fruition.  Thanks for quoting Sultan for me...glad he doesn't care one bit about Olympic sports...plenty of young men and women out in this country do as a means to get an education, represent their school, later their nation...I guess that's why he doesn't care one iota about them.

Your question above, all depends on how the P + L works.  At some schools does the Engineering department help pay for the Nursing school....you bet they do.  At other schools, depending how the accounting is done, no. 

[GooooMarquette]

Well and good. Except that it has nothing to do with Sports. You guys come up with all of these professions where the state wants to be sure that people are actually qualified. That is not necessary in Sports. The restrictions in sports are not about making sure that people are qualified. They are strictly arbitrary age restrictions.

I think most of us are adult enough to realize everything is not the same.

I was responding to Ners' comment - pointing out that there are plenty of professions that prevent you from marketing your skill when you might otherwise be paid to do so.  He did not limit his comment to sports. 

[Tugg Speedman]

You would be dead wrong.  I wrote a thesis paper on this in grad school around Title IX and it was already impacting male Olympic sports back then in terms of performances at the Olympics and elsewhere (world championships, etc) due to limited opportunities.  That was 20+ years ago.  It most certainly continues to have an impact.

How can it not have an impact when some sports will have to be dropped in these scenarios you guys keep coming up with?  There is no choice but to drop some sports if some of these scenarios come to fruition.  Thanks for quoting Sultan for me...glad he doesn't care one bit about Olympic sports...plenty of young men and women out in this country do as a means to get an education, represent their school, later their nation...I guess that's why he doesn't care one iota about them.

Your question above, all depends on how the P + L works.  At some schools does the Engineering department help pay for the Nursing school....you bet they do.  At other schools, depending how the accounting is done, no.  

I get it that Title IX reduced Men's Olympic sports and therefore Men's performances in the Olympics.  Makes perfect sense.

But you're making a HUGE leap that paying football players will result in less money for the Athletic departments and they will respond by cutting even more Men's Olympic sports.

Formalize the pay, shift some of the costs to the player (now that the player is getting paid, they can pay for some things, like tutors), and beg boosters to donate for Olympic sports and I think things will work out just fine.

Two Examples ....

The United States Tennis Association (USTA) makes over $200 million/year, most of it from the US (tennis) open alone.  Donate $20 million/year to the NCAA (or some other like organization) to distribute to College tennis teams.  Get the tennis equipment manufacturers to do the same.

Ditto above with the United States Golf Association (USGA).  How about asking the Augusta country club, that also has zillions, to help pay to develop college golf?

Once the rules are gone, just have to think creatively.

[forgetful]

Well and good. Except that it has nothing to do with Sports. You guys come up with all of these professions where the state wants to be sure that people are actually qualified. That is not necessary in Sports. The restrictions in sports are not about making sure that people are qualified. They are strictly arbitrary age restrictions.

I think most of us are adult enough to realize everything is not the same.

I actually disagree on them not being the same.  Training is training.

But to appease you there are age restrictions for:

Equipment operation, truck driving, bartending, police officer (21, 25 in chicago), working on a cruise-ship (21), flight-attendant, (criminal justice workers) etc, etc.

[Tugg Speedman]

I actually disagree on them not being the same.  Training is training.

But to appease you there are age restrictions for:

Equipment operation, truck driving, bartending, police officer (21, 25 in chicago), working on a cruise-ship (21), flight-attendant, (criminal justice workers) etc, etc.

Are these age restrictions the results of Government laws or part of a private agreement (like a collective bargaining agreement)?  I think this makes a difference.

[forgetful]

Are these age restrictions the results of Government laws or part of a private agreement (like a collective bargaining agreement)?  I think this makes a difference.

Most age restrictions are not government law based, rather they stem from the perceived lack of maturity in younger people.  This leads in some cases to increases on insurance.  Some institutions/companies decide the insurance cost is not worth the hiring of founder people (so in essence a private agreement).

That is the same origin of the age restrictions in sports.  A general perceived lack of maturity that renders them too much of a risk.  A risk they are not willing to take for financial considerations.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Berg, depends on the school.

FAU runs a deficit just in football alone. 

Florida Atlantic Univ.           Revenue        Expense              Profit
Football                         $2,280,834.00  $4,610,870.00        -$2,330,036.00
Men’s Basketball                 $379,745.00    $1,205,402.00        -$825,657.00
Women’s Basketball               $121,177.00    $922,597.00          -$801,420.00
Other Sports – Men’s (8)(303)    $340,689.00    $1,663,949.00        -$1,323,260.00
Other Sports – Women’s (8)(175)  $432,511.00    $2,603,570.00       -$2,171,059.00
                                                                     -$7,451,432.00

Ohio U is a bit different:

Ohio University                    Revenue         Expense          Profit
Football                          $7,467,896.00    $7,385,482.00    $82,414.00
Men’s Basketball                  $2,614,831.00    $2,327,125.00    $287,706.00
Women’s Basketball                $1,149,723.00    $1,427,734.00   -$278,011.00
Other Sports – Men’s (6)(245)     $1,884,051.00    $1,928,829.00   -$44,778.00
Other Sports – Women’s (8)(253)    $4,363,211.00   $4,732,698.00   -$369,487.00
                                                                    -$322,156.00

Then you look at someone like Florida or Penn State, and they clear $30M from football so it's another world.  Bigger stadiums, bigger tv contracts, etc

[brandx]

Statistics tell the entire story. They could never be manipulated to bolster an argument  

If you only show one side of something, it's very easy to make a point.

Let's all pretend that having good sports teams doesn't mean more money from boosters and alumni. Cuz... you know, it's not in Chico's statistics.

[MU82]

Lots of interesting facts and debates in this post.

Say what you want about Bayless, but he does have a knack of stirring up debate and controversy, which is his job.

I got to know Bayless fairly well when we were both in Chicago. We weren't what Sid Hartman would call close personal friends, but we had decent conversations and he was always very nice to me.

After my wife and I went to Topolobampo, the fantastic (and extremely expensive) gourmet Mexican restaurant operated by his brother, Rick, I mentioned to Skip how much we loved the meal. Skip barely grunted. I later learned that the two famous Bayless boys do not get along, with Skip supposedly quite jealous of Rick's well-deserved fame.

[ChicosBailBonds]

The fundamental question for me remains, why is it the NCAA's job to be the one that allows this opportunity for these elite of the elite to earn money?

That's not their mission.   Why aren't those clamoring to destroy college athletics and ultimately reducing opportunities for men and women in other sports as well as revenue sports....why aren't you pushing to have a real minor leagues started by those professional sports?  It shouldn't be the NCAA's job to change their model, change what they do for these edge cases.

If a kid doesn't want a free education...fine...go to the minor leagues and get paid.