Skip Bayless: Let Boosters Pay Players

[Tugg Speedman]

If this happens, the ivies take over.  Their boosters have all the money.


Unleash the boosters
Drop the false idol of amateurism in college sports
Originally Published: July 25, 2014
By Skip Bayless | ESPN.com

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11260822/college-football-paying-athletes

I have taken this stand for 30 years in newspapers, on radio and on "First Take." I've often been called un-American for proposing an extremely American solution to the un-American injustice taking place before our wide eyes every college football Saturday. So go ahead, close your eyes and condemn me if you must.

Here I go again: College football should make cheating legal. If the NFL can keep getting away with forcing players to wait three years out of high school before they're drafted -- three! -- the NCAA should be made to do away with its rules against paying players beyond room, board and tuition. I'm not talking about some token, $2,000-a-year "spending money" stipend for every player. I mean: If university boosters want to bid for the nation's best players, let them!

After all, this country was built on a good ol' free-market economy. Supply and demand. And are the best 18-year-old football players ever in demand. That's why TV networks pay billions -- around $16 billion total -- to televise college football. ESPN is paying about $470 million annually for the next 12 years -- about $5.64 billion total -- just to broadcast the new four-team playoff.

Yet the stars of the show are forced to risk their pro futures for three unpaid years playing a violent, high-stakes game before packed stadiums seating upward of 100,000 and TV audiences of millions? That's the biggest crime in sports.

Earlier this week, Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby suggested many of college football's recruiting crimes are going unpunished, calling it "an understatement to say cheating pays." My initial reaction: Good, maybe some of these kids are getting a little of what they deserve.

Bowlsby's point is that the NCAA's enforcement division is "broken" -- in large part because it doesn't have governmental subpoena power to force under-oath testimony from those not directly involved with schools (obviously boosters and agents). It's easier than ever, Bowlsby is saying, to get away with paying players.

What Bowlsby didn't say is that there are more rich boosters than ever who would gladly pay players to win bragging rights for them on autumn Saturdays.

So why not let them?

Even the power schools still cry poor, claiming that, despite the TV windfalls, they still don't have enough money to fund all their nonrevenue sports, men's and women's. So if enough of the top recruits ever unite and sue the NCAA, surely a judge (even on appeal) would rule the NCAA cannot restrict these players from making all they can on the open market.

I'm not talking about letting the NCAA control the process by setting salary limits. This is about whatever the market will bear. If schools can't or won't pay but boosters will, problem solved. Obviously, college stars deserve substantial compensation, right?

This is where I lose many people, who sputter something like, "It just ... just wouldn't be college football if we knew the players were getting paid."

That's exactly what the NCAA has been selling -- and hiding behind -- for years. The Amateur Ideal ... every alum's fantasy that every one of those fine young men down on that field chose to play for Dear Old U because they wanted to sit in the same classrooms and attend the same frat parties that generations of students have, then spill their blood to kick Rival State's tail.

That's a bunch of ivy-covered bunk, and you know it.

Though I graduated from Vanderbilt, I was born into a family of crazed University of Oklahoma football fans and became one. But not once did I ever believe any of the many high school stars from Texas chose to attend college in Norman for any reason other than football (and, over the years, maybe a Trans Am or a few under-the-table bucks). I accepted my Sooners were little more than Oklahoma City's pro football team.

Now, please face this reality: Boosters should be allowed to entice recruits with whatever they want to offer -- cars, signing bonuses, annual salaries, annuities. I'm not talking about the Northwestern players' attempt to unionize college football and protect every player's rights and secure standard pay. I'm talking strictly supply and demand.

Of course, the first fear would be that billionaire boosters such as Phil Knight at the University of Oregon or T. Boone Pickens at Oklahoma State would buy superteams. Highly doubtful.

No. 1, these men have learned that projecting high school football stars is far riskier than high school basketball stars. You see far more swings and misses on can't-miss football recruits than basketball blue chips. These billionaires didn't get rich by gambling foolishly. There would be a limit to the money they offered -- and many marginal recruits would wind up being offered no more than a scholarship.

No. 2, how many 18-year-olds around the country would take the money and run to three years in Eugene, Oregon, or Stillwater, Oklahoma, if boosters at a nearby school came up with, say, half of what those schools were offering? How many top recruits would then follow childhood dreams to play for their mom's or dad's school or their favorite team? How many would choose to play for less money at, say, Alabama because they believed Nick Saban would better prepare them to make NFL millions?

No, letting boosters bid for recruits would not dramatically change college football's balance of power. For that matter, consider the choice Saban made. ESPN's Paul Finebaum reports in his new book, "My Conference Is Better Than Your Conference: Why the SEC Rules College Football" that Texas boosters were prepared to offer Saban $12-15 million in a signing bonus and a package of $100 million. For reasons other than money, obviously, Saban stayed at Alabama, where he'll make "only" about $7 million this season.

Wait, Saban was offered $100 million, yet, by NCAA rules, Leonard Fournette could be offered nothing but a scholarship? Fournette is a 6-foot-1, 226-pound running back from New Orleans who signed with LSU about 80 miles up the road in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. From all I've heard from coaches about Fournette -- and I spoke with many this week at ESPN -- this kid could have easily been a top-10 pick in May's NFL draft. Here, America, is the next Adrian Peterson.

If he becomes a Heisman contender and leads LSU to a national championship next season, or the next, how much will he be worth to the school? As much as coach Les Miles, who makes $4.3 million this season? Easily. And if, heaven forbid, an injury jeopardizes his pro career ...

Once upon a time, a freshman running back named Maurice Clarett led Ohio State to a national championship, then was suspended for his sophomore season and went to court to win the right to enter the NFL draft a year early. It appeared college football's walls had come tumbling down when a federal judge ruled in Clarett's favor. But of course, the NFL flexed its legal influence and Clarett lost in the U.S. Court of Appeals -- a dark day for gifted high school football players to come.

Someday, some college star will win his financial freedom in court.

Let the very best be paid without limits. Let boosters foot the bill.

Trust me, college football's multibillion-dollar popularity would not be threatened. Come fall Saturdays, everyone in the stands and watching on TV would forget the stars on the field are being paid like the pro football players they really are.

[Stronghold]

"Without limits" is when this situation gets out of control.

[Dawson Rental]

"Without limits" is when this situation gets out of control.

The fact that the NCAA might need a "salary cap" speaks volumes about the unfairness of the current situation.

[ChicosBailBonds]

The fact that the NCAA might need a "salary cap" speaks volumes about the unfairness of the current situation.

What is unfair about the current situation?  That they get a free education, free room and board, free tutoring, free world class coaching, free access to network of powerful alumni that 99.9% of other students don't get.

The idea like most of Bayless ideas, is laughable.

[wadesworld]

What is unfair about the current situation?  That they get a free education, free room and board, free tutoring, free world class coaching, free access to network of powerful alumni that 99.9% of other students don't get.

The idea like most of Bayless ideas, is laughable.

It gets clicks.  I'd be shocked if Bayless himself believes 50% of what he says.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Berg, there is money everywhere and it would hardly just be the ivies.  There are only so many roster positions.  You would also have many Ivy alumni that would be furious that certain kids are being enrolled at their institutions that have no academic ability to succeed there.

The beneficiaries would be large schools with large alumni bases that already place sports at a high level with academics somewhere in the middle.  

[ChicosBailBonds]

It gets clicks.  I'd be shocked if Bayless himself believes 50% of what he says.

Yup.

[NersEllenson]

What is unfair about the current situation?  That they get a free education, free room and board, free tutoring, free world class coaching, free access to network of powerful alumni that 99.9% of other students don't get.

The idea like most of Bayless ideas, is laughable.

What's unfair about it, particularly football, is that the top recruits are blue chip commodities that schools fight over - and profit handsomely from - in building powerful and profitable football teams.  These kids bang the hell out of their bodies, are one injury away from never being able to cash in on the near world class talent they've worked hard to develop by the age of 18 - and aren't able to cash in for 3 years.  

There is no other scenario/"profession" I can think of where a person develops an elite talent/skill, and is not able to cash in on it for 3 years, when the market would otherwise be ready to pay big money for that talent  - other than college football model.

If someone was ready to basically pay you $10M when you were 18 years old, or you could go to school for 4 years and risk potential injury that would eliminate that $10M talent/skill - would 4 years of a free education, room and board, tutoring be enough to compel you to forgo that immediate payout?  And like many of the top football recruits, assume you came from a family with limited economic resources - what would you do Chicos?

[ChuckyChip]

If someone was ready to basically pay you $10M when you were 18 years old, or you could go to school for 4 years and risk potential injury that would eliminate that $10M talent/skill - would 4 years of a free education, room and board, tutoring be enough to compel you to forgo that immediate payout?  And like many of the top football recruits, assume you came from a family with limited economic resources - what would you do Chicos?

But how many 18-year olds are physically ready to jump to, and play in, the NFL?  I would say very, very few.  So either you would need some type of development league (low pay, risk of injury) or they go to college...and they don't need to stay for four years, I believe they only need to play two years if they redshirt.

This is the issue I have with paying college players - yes, a few sell a lot of jerseys and draw extra fans, but what about the third string right tackle or the backup punter?  Do you pay them the same amount?  We're talking about setting up a system more focused on the "superstars" of which there are very few.  The majority of college football players don't play in the NFL, so a four or five year full scholarship with the attendant benefits seems more than fair.

[Dawson Rental]

But how many 18-year olds are physically ready to jump to, and play in, the NFL?  I would say very, very few.  So either you would need some type of development league (low pay, risk of injury) or they go to college...and they don't need to stay for four years, I believe they only need to play two years if they redshirt.

This is the issue I have with paying college players - yes, a few sell a lot of jerseys and draw extra fans, but what about the third string right tackle or the backup punter?  Do you pay them the same amount?  We're talking about setting up a system more focused on the "superstars" of which there are very few.  The majority of college football players don't play in the NFL, so a four or five year full scholarship with the attendant benefits seems more than fair.

I guess that the clearest way I can state my position is from an economics perspective.  Anytime you collude with all of a person's potential options to use their talent in order to limit the compensation that a person can receive from utilizing that talent, fairness has gone out the window.  Any justification for shutting down the free market with such collusion can only be a rationalization.

[GGGG]

Furthermore, I don't know if it is college football's responsibility to pay players because the 18 year old's access to the free market is blocked by a labor agreement.

[Dawson Rental]

Berg, there is money everywhere and it would hardly just be the ivies.  There are only so many roster positions.  You would also have many Ivy alumni that would be furious that certain kids are being rolled at their institutions that have no academic ability to succeed there.

The beneficiaries would be large schools with large alumni bases that already place sports at a high level with academics somewhere in the middle. 

I disagree.  Those schools are already receiving the benefits of booster payments to athletes through the use of sophisticated booster networks that are expert at circumventing the NCAA rules.  The beneficiaries would be the schools with integrity that currently compete with a hand behind their back by not having such networks.  For those schools, it would level the playing field.

[Dawson Rental]

Furthermore, I don't know if it is college football's responsibility to pay players because the 18 year old's access to the free market is blocked by a labor agreement.

I agree that the NFL's labor agreement doesn't create college football's responsibility to pay collegiate football players.  It is college football's responsibility to pay players because those schools use those players to generate a gawd awful amount of income for their athletic departments.

[GGGG]

I agree that the NFL's labor agreement doesn't create college football's responsibility to pay collegiate football players.  It is college football's responsibility to pay players because those schools use those players to generate a god awful amount of income for their athletic departments.

I don't disagree.  I am not sure that you can just open it up completely.  Even the NFL and NBA have salary caps.

[Dawson Rental]

I don't disagree.  I am not sure that you can just open it up completely.  Even the NFL and NBA have salary caps.

That's the beauty of Bayless' argument.  He's not advocating that schools squeeze their athletic departments budgets to pay the players, he's just saying let boosters -- volunteers willing to foot the bill -- have the ability to toss away as much of their own personal wealth as they want in order to recruit/compensate players.  He's really saying just legalize what many schools, especially in the SEC, already are doing under the table, so every booster can have the equal right to willingly toss money recruits way.

[MarquetteDano]

That's the beauty of Bayless' argument.  He's not advocating that schools squeeze their athletic departments budgets to pay the players

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.

[WarriorFan]

You would also have many Ivy alumni that would be furious that certain kids are being rolled at their institutions that have no academic ability to succeed there.

Some of the Ivies - Harvard specifically - gave up "academic ability to succeed" a long time ago when they sold out to the socialist wing of the Democratic party to become it's training ground.  They have become a degree mill for those who buy into the philosophy.

Nothing would be different if we changed this out for football excellence.  

I think Bayless is giving a window into the future of college athletics, like it or not.  

The only things I would regulate is:
- no direct payments from boosters to athletes
- pay is based on playing time.  Benchwarmers get $10k/year.  Full time starters get $50k/year.  Everyone else in between.
- No additional scholarships.  Football teams are already too large at the college level.  

[GGGG]

Some of the Ivies - Harvard specifically - gave up "academic ability to succeed" a long time ago when they sold out to the socialist wing of the Democratic party to become it's training ground.  They have become a degree mill for those who buy into the philosophy.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

[Atticus]

Give me a break. The kid that just decommitted from SMU signed a 1 year deal in China for $1.2M. He'll get endorsements, too. Buh-bye. The NCAA shouldnt cater to a very select group of kids that DONT HAVE to play college basketball  but willingly CHOOSE to. If the NBA wants an age limit, there is nothing prohibiting kids from playing abroad or in the D-League. Take a hike. See ya later. The NCAA shouldnt bend over backwards for a select group of kids that are using college basketball for a year or two to make an NBA roster. College basketball will do just fine if the top 20 or so kids every year decide to play for pay somewhere. To my knowledge, no one is putting a gun to each kid's head and telling him he has to play college basketball. Oh, not mature enough to play abroad? Well, apparently those same kids are mature enough 9 months later to interview agents, hire an agent, sign endorsement deals, sign a multi-million dollar contract, and present himself in a way that is endearing to a NBA franchise's fans. Get lost.

College football players have less options. Is that the fault of the NCAA? Nope. Dont like the rules? Take a hike. Again, there is no gun to the head of these high school players to sign with a college. So what is their alternative to college? I dont know. Maybe some of them should email the NFL commissioner and ask what their options are....  

And I cant believe someone is arguing that they are risking injury. Again, no one is making them play the sport. There is risk/reward with every decision in life. If football players had an alternative to college, they would still risk injury in some other developmental league. And I HIGHLY doubt there is room on a 53 man roster for a kid right out of high school. No chance.

[Tugg Speedman]

Jay Bilas once described how it would work ...

Big time blue chip recruit gets 300k plus tuition.   Big time recruit, agrees to stay 2 years, maintain a 2.5 GPA and not get arrested.   If big time recruit leaves early, fails to keep grades or gets busted, the contract details fine and damages big time recruit must pay.

Finally since big time recruit is getting paid, he can hire tutors (the school can provide a list if interested) and an accountant to pay taxes.

[Tugg Speedman]

Give me a break. The kid that just decommitted from SMU signed a 1 year deal in China for $1.2M. He'll get endorsements, too. Buy-bye. The NCAA shouldnt cater to a very select group of kids that DONT HAVE to play college basketball  but willingly CHOOSE to. If the NBA wants an age limit, there is nothing prohibiting kids from playing abroad or in the D-League. Take a hike. See ya later. The NCAA shouldnt bend over backwards for a select group of kids that are using college basketball for a year or two to make an NBA roster. College basketball will do just fine if the top 20 or so kids every year decide to play for pay somewhere. To my knowledge, no one is putting a gun to each kid's head and telling him he has to play college basketball. Oh, not mature enough to play abroad? Well, apparently those same kids are mature enough 9 months later to interview agents, hire an agent, sign endorsement deals, sign a multi-million dollar contract, and present himself in a way that is endearing to a NBA franchise's fans. Get lost.

College football players have less options. Is that the fault of the NCAA? Nope. Dont like the rules? Take a hike. Again, there is no gun to the head of these high school players to sign with a college. So what is their alternative to college? I dont know. Maybe some of them should email the NFL commissioner and ask what their options are....  

And I cant believe someone is arguing that they are risking injury. Again, no one is making them play the sport. There is risk/reward with every decision in life. If football players had an alternative to college, they would still risk injury in some other developmental league. And I HIGHLY doubt there is room on a 53 man roster for a kid right out of high school. No chance.

Man do I love this sentiment ... I 100% agree, I really do.  

Can we also get rid of minimum wage, union rules, OHSA and EEOC rules while we are at it?

(PS, can High School football players go straight to the Arena League or the CFL to get paid?  Anyone know?)

[GGGG]

Can we also get rid of minimum wage, union rules, OHSA and EEOC rules while we are at it?

And child labor.  Don't forget getting rid of those pesky child labor laws.

[MU82]

This reminds me of the "Just let everybody take steroids" argument.

And sometimes I find myself agreeing with that, too.

[forgetful]

What's unfair about it, particularly football, is that the top recruits are blue chip commodities that schools fight over - and profit handsomely from - in building powerful and profitable football teams.  These kids bang the hell out of their bodies, are one injury away from never being able to cash in on the near world class talent they've worked hard to develop by the age of 18 - and aren't able to cash in for 3 years.  

There is no other scenario/"profession" I can think of where a person develops an elite talent/skill, and is not able to cash in on it for 3 years, when the market would otherwise be ready to pay big money for that talent  - other than college football model.

If someone was ready to basically pay you $10M when you were 18 years old, or you could go to school for 4 years and risk potential injury that would eliminate that $10M talent/skill - would 4 years of a free education, room and board, tutoring be enough to compel you to forgo that immediate payout?  And like many of the top football recruits, assume you came from a family with limited economic resources - what would you do Chicos?

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

What's unfair about it, particularly football, is that the top recruits are blue chip commodities that schools fight over - and profit handsomely from - in building powerful and profitable football teams.  These kids bang the hell out of their bodies, are one injury away from never being able to cash in on the near world class talent they've worked hard to develop by the age of 18 - and aren't able to cash in for 3 years.  

There is no other scenario/"profession" I can think of where a person develops an elite talent/skill, and is not able to cash in on it for 3 years, when the market would otherwise be ready to pay big money for that talent  - other than college football model.

If someone was ready to basically pay you $10M when you were 18 years old, or you could go to school for 4 years and risk potential injury that would eliminate that $10M talent/skill - would 4 years of a free education, room and board, tutoring be enough to compel you to forgo that immediate payout?  And like many of the top football recruits, assume you came from a family with limited economic resources - what would you do Chicos?

Do you know how many jobs require a minimum of a bachelor's degree?  Happens all over the place.  Let's look at coaching in the NCAA, how many programs require a degree?  Almost all of them.  Is that fair? 

I get the 0.5% edge case you are trying to present, but that's all it is, an edge case.  Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is stupid, and that's what people are advocating like this with Bayless.