The Committee To Save College Basketball

[MUDPT]

Here is a summary of the tasks that the committee are directed to deal with.  Robinson' qualifications, as you list them above, suggest he has no more insight or knowledge about these issues than any regular poster here ...

------------------

1. The relationship of the NCAA national office, member institutions, student-athletes and coaches with outside entities, including: Apparel companies and other commercial entities, to establish an environment where they can support programs in a transparent way, but not become an inappropriate or distorting influence on the game, recruits or their families.

* Nonscholastic basketball, with a focus on the appropriate involvement of college coaches and others.

* Agents or advisors, with an emphasis on how students and their families can get legitimate advice without being taken advantage of, defrauded or risk their NCAA eligibility.

2. The NCAA's relationship with the NBA, and the challenging effect the NBA's so-called "one and done" rule has had on college basketball, including how the NCAA can change its own eligibility rules to address that dynamic.

3. Creating the right relationship between the universities and colleges of the NCAA and its national office to promote transparency and accountability. The commission will be asked to evaluate whether the appropriate degree of authority is vested in the current enforcement and eligibility processes, and whether the collaborative model provides the investigative tools, cultural incentives and structures to ensure exploitation and corruption cannot hide in college sports.

------------------

Robinson is a bright and highly successful person.  Here is a role model.  But he probably has not thought about sneaker money in basketball for more than three seconds until he was named to this committee.  Your qualifications make that clear.

So, what do highly educated successful people like him and Condi do?  They agree with the consensus.  What is the consensus?  The people that have thought about sneaker money in basketball like Foley, Smith JT3 and Emmert.  Their point of view will prevail.  That is it stays with some BS transparency rules.

None of them are going to suggest a radical change like a Bilas, O'Bannon or Cuban might.  Robinson certainly is not. So nothing of substance will come of it.

You watch, Condi will hold a presser in April and brag about the hundreds of hours the committee spend investigating these issues (meaning getting them to a MUscoop poster understanding of the issue), the thousands of pages of documents to review (that Smith an Emmert told them to read to understand the issue from their point of view) and the length of the report.  These are codes words for nothing will change and everyone's time was wasted.

David Robinson had a shoe deal with Nike when he was in the NBA. He had his own shoe. I'm sure he knows plenty about shoe deals, more than 99% of the general public. Sorry I keep defending him, but he was my favorite player growing up.

[Tugg Speedman]

There are 300,000 people that played D1 and have kids that played D1?

Actually the number is 400,000.  The NCAA has an entire advertising campaign about this statistics.

To the nearly 400,000 student-athletes who will go pro in something other than sports, I say: Congratulations! Just don't get too fat. No one will believe that you once played sports, and you will have pretty much wasted the last four years of your lives.

http://www.espn.com/espn/page2/story/_/page/gallo%2F110517_NCAA_commencement

So that is 800,000 parents on top of the 400,000 D1 alumni that have played sports.  But the top of that heap is David Robinson?

Ed O'Bannon played?  He won a NCAA championship.  His son plays too.  Why not him?

Becuase O'Bannon actually has an opinion on the subject of money in college basketball.  He wants players to make money off their likeness.  Smith and Emmert do not because they want the money for themselves (in the case of Smith for his bonus every time a student-athlete wins a championship at tOSU).  Robinson will go along with whatever Smith and Emmert want him to go along with.  And that is not O'Bannon's ideas.

[Tugg Speedman]

I'm glad Heisy is around to tell exactly how everyone thinks. His telepathy is a true gift!

I'm glad scoopers are around to say the way that we can fix college basket is getting a guy that majored in Mathematics 30 years ago at the naval academy that has never publically utter an opinion about sneaker money or one-and-done.

Some people want to dazzled by big names and little reform.

David Robinson had a shoe deal with Nike when he was in the NBA. He had his own shoe. I'm sure he knows plenty about shoe deals, more than 99% of the general public. Sorry I keep defending him, but he was my favorite player growing up.

So did O'Bannon.

I'm not saying anything bad about Robinson.  He truly is a role model, and so are his kids.  You too are getting sucked into star power where actual opinion and knowledge is needed.  On this front, Robinson is not the right guy.

College basketball has some epic problems that are going to require serious reform.  Is Robinson going to say ...

"I know that Smith, Foley, Emmert and JT3 have lived this life their professional career, with these issues, and I have only studied it six months, while also trying to run my other businesses at the same time. but I think they are wrong on their conclusions and serious reform is needed.  So I propose here is what we should do to fix college basketball?"

The answer is of course not.  O'Bannon, Cuban and Bilas would stand up to the crimes bosses on the committee that are part of the problem. 

* Someone needs to tell Gene Smith that his pay compensation is an abomination to the very ideals of college sports. 

*Someone needs to tell Foley that the hundreds of athletes arrested at Florida when he ran their AD are a poor reflection on the NCAA. It makes a mockery of the idea of a "student-athlete" as Florida is all about winning at any cost.

* Someone needs to tell Emmert that their inability to punish bad actors, including North Carolina the week the committee was formed, gives incentives to cheat because you can get away with it. 

* Someone needs to tell JT3 and his father are the root of the problem for taking sneaker money when coaching at Georgetown.

Robinson (and Grant Hill) will not do this and will agree with whatever face-saving BS the crime bosses come up with.

[TheyWereCones]

Paying every athlete the same (free tuition) is the problem, that is not how life works.  Those that complain that "everyone gets a trophy" should understand this.

So first let's acknowledge that 80% to 90% of all athletes in all sports are well paid with free tuition and value that.  The problem is the 10% to 20% that matter is worth more than free tuition.  And the top 1% to 5% do not value the free tuition and view it as a hindrance to their training for a future professional career.  So those are the athletes that need to be paid. 

And without them, a program is greatly diminished.  So, let school find the right value for players by paying them.  When that happens, most of the problems college athletics have will go away. 

It is because we don't pay everyone their worth that college athletics are such a mess.

So in this hypothetical, where would you draw that line for who gets paid and who doesn't? Is it by sport? Is it by athlete? How are you defining the 10% to 20% "that matter?"

[Tugg Speedman]

So in this hypothetical, where would you draw that line for who gets paid and who doesn't? Is it by sport? Is it by athlete? How are you defining the 10% to 20% "that matter?"

This is the easiest part.  You give each sport a budget, based on how important that sport is to the school, and then you let the coach decide how to allocate the resources.  This is exactly how it works now.  The resource now is scholarship and the coach decides who to allocate it too to produce the best possible product.  Now we will give them some funds for "payment."

So, yes you could decide that Women's Volleyball only gets a scholarship and no "payment" and then while allocating a lot of money for "payment" to Men's Basketball.

Bilas has argued this going as far as saying if you pay a kid (like Lousiville did with Bowen) that he signs a contract.  That kid is responsible for paying taxes, maintaining a minimum GPA, staying a certain number of years (no early jumping into the draft unless the team drafting you wants to buy out the school's contract)a moral clause, etc.  Should they violate any of these, they forfeit some of their payment.  Want to be treated like a professional, then you get all of it.

Like I said 80% to 90% of the kids are well paid with a scholarship.  The rest are free to get money above the table with stipulations.

What I described is how the world works.  It is how everyone's job works (unless they work for the Government).  It is precisely because NCAA sports do not work this way which is at the root of all their issues.

-------------

The unknown is Title IX.  That does not cover payment because it was not considered when the law was written.  This rule change could not violate it ... the football team gets better resources than the Women's field hockey team.  No one argues that equal resources need to spent, just equal number of scholarships.

[B. McBannerson]

Ed O'Bannon? Give me a break.  The guy had his hand out at UCLA and ever since.

Not sure what this means

Condi Rice led Stanford University, she understands college athletics and how to do it right.  She should stay.

This could be interpreted as the schools profiting off the "student-athlete."  Some think this is precisely the problem while you say it is "do it the right way."

David Robinson, stay.

Why?  Because he played D1 and has kids that play D1?  About 300,000 people have this qualification.

Mark Cuban, not a chance. 

Why not?

Jay Bilas, an interesting one but he never articulates his full position on these things. He can't wait to compensate basketball and football players, but refuses to answer the questions on what to do with the Title IX, non revenue sports, as if they don't exist. For a lawyer, he dodges the real questions to have some populist opinion.  Heading the committee?  Puuuhhhhlease.  Put him on there, fine, but he needs to have a balanced look on how to deal with everything.  You can't make decisions in a vacuum this comes to a grinding halt.

Bilas has articulated a position.  You expect him to publish white papers and full-blown analysis on this idea.  Instead, put him on a committee with resources to fully flesh it out ... unless they don't want this conclusion.

Mark Emmert, led the University of Washington.  NCAA President.  Yes, you need him on the committee.  This committee isn't to investigate the NCAA, it's about what may be of a benefit in terms of reforms.  The worst thing you can do is bring in a bunch of people (as companies often do) from the outside that make recommendations with no understanding at all on the ramifications.  Good to have some checks and balances, including internal people.

Poor argument, Emmert is on the committee to protect Emmert, not basketball.

Schools do not make a ton of money off players. That is just wrong on the merits and the facts.  Show me the tons of money schools are making off women's basketball, volleyball, soccer, track, field hockey and the list that goes on forever? 

See Gene Smith above, he made $18k off a Wrestling championship.  In total, he made $54k off Logan Stieber's three NCAA championships at tOSU.  Somehow Smith's wife gets a new BMW off Steiber's achievements but then we plead poor to giving Stieber money.  And I have not gotten into the arms race of facilities where these schools spend hundreds of millions on them.

There are craploads of money in college sports, they just don't want to pay the students.  Not paying college athletes in the most inequitable thing in sports.

Larry Brown?  One too many last night?

I said Brown instead of JT3 ... the very definition of a coach bought and paid for by a shoe contract.  His freaking father invented the idea!!

It means Ed O'Bannon is never been about what is right for college basketball and was always looking for the take. 

Condi Rice, tell me again how schools are profiteering from student athletes when almost no schools profits from athletics?  Furthermore, tell me how schools profit from women's hoops, field hockey, volleyball, men's track?  Or go further and see Stanford attendance when they were good and bad.  Yes, attendance somewhat better when good, but it's not as if no one showed up when they were bad.  People come to watch Stanford, not necessarily who the QB or running back is.

David Robinson, NAVAL Academy. Do you realize how hard that is to get in? He did, and flourished. Long NBA career. Man of character. Yes, two kids also in college athletics.  Show me 300,000 people with his character, played in the NBA, got into a school like Navy on academic merit, and has two DI kids?  How about maybe there are 10 people in the world that can make that claim.

Mark Cuban, you just wait to see the fun stuff that comes out on him if he runs for POTUS.

Emmert is doing what the university Presidents asked him to do. He could leave the NCAA tomorrow and make more money doing something else with a lot less headaches.

Bilas needs to articulate the entire position, not just a soundbyte.  His stances come across as not even acknowledging the other 700000 student athletes, as if they don't exist.

Gene Smith, that's how his contract was written. Maybe he donated the money to charity, who knows. As an AD he is tasked with creating a program that can succeed and if they do succeed, he is rewarded. He has to create that environment by hiring the right coaches, having the right facilities in place, the support system (tutors, etc). 

Money in college athletics.  Go read the NCAA balance sheet and come back to me.  That crap ton of money you talk about, where does it go?  Educate yourself.

Larry Brown.  Yes, Larry Brown.  Hard to take you seriously when Larry Brown made your list for anything.

[B. McBannerson]

Would you have produced large revenues for the school?

Does one player produce large revenues for the school?  No.  It's an inane argument.   Did you buy your season tickets because of Markus Howard? Because of Joey Hauser?  They are here today, gone tomorrow.  People buy tickets to see Marquette play.

[B. McBannerson]

Paying every athlete the same (free tuition) is the problem, that is not how life works.  Those that complain that "everyone gets a trophy" should understand this.

So first let's acknowledge that 80% to 90% of all athletes in all sports are well paid with free tuition and value that.  The problem is the 10% to 20% that matter is worth more than free tuition.  And the top 1% to 5% do not value the free tuition and view it as a hindrance to their training for a future professional career.  So those are the athletes that need to be paid. 

And without them, a program is greatly diminished.  So, let school find the right value for players by paying them.  When that happens, most of the problems college athletics have will go away. 

It is because we don't pay everyone their worth that college athletics are such a mess.

You are not wrong, but it's also what allows hundreds of thousands of men, women, minorities the chance to participate. If these elite players don't think they are getting their just dues, then go somewhere else. You want to force a model to benefit the few when that is not how the model was created or flourishes. 

You really think college athletics is a mess because some players are not paid their worth?  And your solution is by paying the QB more, this will make things better? Have you really thought this through? What happens when the QB breaks his leg and the third stringer has to come in and saves the game?  Are we pulling the money from the starting QB and giving it to the third stringer?  There are 1000's of scenarios you haven't taken one second to contemplate.  The abuse of the system will destroy college athletics.  In the process, men and women, many of color, will have no opportunities at all because we had to take care of the 1%ers.

[Tugg Speedman]

Does one player produce large revenues for the school?  No.  It's an inane argument.   Did you buy your season tickets because of Markus Howard? Because of Joey Hauser?  They are here today, gone tomorrow.  People buy tickets to see Marquette play.

So you honestly think no one bought tickets or tuned in because MU signed Henry Ellenson? 

Howard's season that propelled MU to the tournament had no bearing on interest in the team?

Why does everyone understand sports economics for pros and suddenly go brain dead when it comes to college?

[Tugg Speedman]

It means Ed O'Bannon is never been about what is right for college basketball and was always looking for the take. 

This is your opinion about what is right for college athletics.  And yes, many hold this view.  But elite players (the top 10% to 20%) often do not.  That is why they choose schools based on mostly non-academic reasons (the coach, potential for winning, playing time, TV exposure, and, yes, how much money they get under the table.)

When was the last time a MU basketball recruit said the business school or engineering school factored into their decision?  When was the last time a MU basketball players graduated from one of these programs (not counting walk-ons)?

Condi Rice, tell me again how schools are profiteering from student athletes when almost no schools profits from athletics?  Furthermore, tell me how schools profit from women's hoops, field hockey, volleyball, men's track?  Or go further and see Stanford attendance when they were good and bad.  Yes, attendance somewhat better when good, but it's not as if no one showed up when they were bad.  People come to watch Stanford, not necessarily who the QB or running back is.

tOSU Board of Trustees, why does AD Gene Smith get $18,000 everytime a non-revenue athlete wins an NCAA championship?  I was told there is no more in college sports.

Northwestern Board of Trustees, what are you spending $200 million on athletic facilities that will open next year and arguably be one of the best practice facilities in all college sports?  Why are you spending this kind of money when there is no money in college sports?

Can we please stop with the canard that no money exists in college sports?  There is, we just elect to spend it elsewhere (AD bonuses and facilities) and then plead poor.


David Robinson, NAVAL Academy. Do you realize how hard that is to get in? He did, and flourished. Long NBA career. Man of character. Yes, two kids also in college athletics.  Show me 300,000 people with his character, played in the NBA, got into a school like Navy on academic merit, and has two DI kids?  How about maybe there are 10 people in the world that can make that claim.

No argument about Robinson but, again, the character is not the qualification for this committee.  It about recognizing the problem and offering difficult solutions.  He will not do this.  Ditto Condi, Ditto Grant Hill, Ditto that worthless scumbag Washington Lawyer.


Mark Cuban, you just wait to see the fun stuff that comes out on him if he runs for POTUS.

Cuban's day job makes him one of the most qualified people in the country to advise on one-and-done college basketball players.  He also has strong opinions about it (he does not like it).

This committee will start meeting in November and offer its conclusions in April.  It finishes over a year before Cuban has to make a decision about running for POTUS.  He has the time and motivation to do it.

Emmert is doing what the university Presidents asked him to do. He could leave the NCAA tomorrow and make more money doing something else with a lot less headaches.

Puhlease.  Emmert is the problem and yes chicos I know you worked with these scumbags so you feel a need to defend them.


Bilas needs to articulate the entire position, not just a sound byte.  His stances come across as not even acknowledging the other 700000 student-athletes, as if they don't exist.

So Robinson can have no opinion about any of this stuff because it does not think about it and we are all supposed to gush because he got into the NAVAL academy?  On the other hand, Bilas has thought about this stuff and has an opinion and his standard is a 500-page detailed analysis of it?  And, no, it is not sound bytes.  He has written extensively about all these issues.  Try your friend google.

Fact is you don't want to pay athletes and neither does Emmert and the rest of the crime bosses.  Bilas does, Cuban does, O'Bannon does and because they don't fit the conclusion you want, that is why you don't want them anywhere near this committee.  This rest is a diversion.  You don't want players paid and don't even want the idea discussed. This problem cannot be fixed until they are paid a market value for their skills.

Gene Smith, that's how his contract was written. Maybe he donated the money to charity, who knows. As an AD he is tasked with creating a program that can succeed and if they do succeed, he is rewarded. He has to create that environment by hiring the right coaches, having the right facilities in place, the support system (tutors, etc).

You just made the perfect argument for compensating athletes.  Instead, you want the money to stay with the crime bosses.

You probably do not see what a hypocrite you are arguing this after arguing there is no money in college sports.

And stop the charity crap.  He bought a BMW so he can drive to meetings to argue why athletes that paid for his car cannot get paid themself.

Money in college athletics.  Go read the NCAA balance sheet and come back to me.  That crap ton of money you talk about, where does it go?  Educate yourself.

The NCAA does not make the money,  The individual schools amke the money.  You know this.

Larry Brown.  Yes, Larry Brown.  Hard to take you seriously when Larry Brown made your list for anything.

Hard to take you seriously when you think JT3 is acceptable.

[B. McBannerson]

So you honestly think no one bought tickets or tuned in because MU signed Henry Ellenson? 

Howard's season that propelled MU to the tournament had no bearing on interest in the team?

Why does everyone understand sports economics for pros and suddenly go brain dead when it comes to college?

Some people did, but most do not.  They are buying tickets to see Marquette play.  If your argument held true then years in which teams were terrible there would be no fans at all.  Are you honestly suggesting people don't buy tickets to watch their alma mater or the local team play regardless of success? 

People bought tickets long before Howard came on the team and they will buy them when he is off the team.  They want to see the team do well, but are they buying them for specific individual players, or the team to perform at a high level and be successful?  In my experience, especially in college, it is the latter, not the former.

By the way, attendance went down year over year when Ellenson played for MU.

[B. McBannerson]

It means Ed O'Bannon is never been about what is right for college basketball and was always looking for the take. 

This is your opinion about what is right for college athletics.  And yes, many hold this view.  But elite players (the top 10% to 20%) often do not.  That is why they choose schools based on mostly non-academic reasons (the coach, potential for winning, playing time, TV exposure, and, yes, how much money they get under the table.)

When was the last time a MU basketball recruit said the business school or engineering school factored into their decision?  When was the last time a MU basketball players graduated from one of these programs (not counting walk-ons)?

Condi Rice, tell me again how schools are profiteering from student athletes when almost no schools profits from athletics?  Furthermore, tell me how schools profit from women's hoops, field hockey, volleyball, men's track?  Or go further and see Stanford attendance when they were good and bad.  Yes, attendance somewhat better when good, but it's not as if no one showed up when they were bad.  People come to watch Stanford, not necessarily who the QB or running back is.

tOSU Board of Trustees, why does AD Gene Smith get $18,000 everytime a non-revenue athlete wins an NCAA championship?  I was told there is no more in college sports.

Northwestern Board of Trustees, what are you spending $200 million on athletic facilities that will open next year and arguably be one of the best practice facilities in all college sports?  Why are you spending this kind of money when there is no money in college sports?

Can we please stop with the canard that no money exists in college sports?  There is, we just elect to spend it elsewhere (AD bonuses and facilities) and then plead poor.


David Robinson, NAVAL Academy. Do you realize how hard that is to get in? He did, and flourished. Long NBA career. Man of character. Yes, two kids also in college athletics.  Show me 300,000 people with his character, played in the NBA, got into a school like Navy on academic merit, and has two DI kids?  How about maybe there are 10 people in the world that can make that claim.

No argument about Robinson but, again, the character is not the qualification for this committee.  It about recognizing the problem and offering difficult solutions.  He will not do this.  Ditto Condi, Ditto Grant Hill, Ditto that worthless scumbag Washington Lawyer.


Mark Cuban, you just wait to see the fun stuff that comes out on him if he runs for POTUS.

Cuban's day job makes him one of the most qualified people in the country to advise on one-and-done college basketball players.  He also has strong opinions about it (he does not like it).

This committee will start meeting in November and offer its conclusions in April.  It finishes over a year before Cuban has to make a decision about running for POTUS.  He has the time and motivation to do it.

Emmert is doing what the university Presidents asked him to do. He could leave the NCAA tomorrow and make more money doing something else with a lot less headaches.

Puhlease.  Emmert is the problem and yes chicos I know you worked with these scumbags so you feel a need to defend them.


Bilas needs to articulate the entire position, not just a sound byte.  His stances come across as not even acknowledging the other 700000 student-athletes, as if they don't exist.

So Robinson can have no opinion about any of this stuff because it does not think about it and we are all supposed to gush because he got into the NAVAL academy?  On the other hand, Bilas has thought about this stuff and has an opinion and his standard is a 500-page detailed analysis of it?  And, no, it is not sound bytes.  He has written extensively about all these issues.  Try your friend google.

Fact is you don't want to pay athletes and neither does Emmert and the rest of the crime bosses.  Bilas does, Cuban does, O'Bannon does and because they don't fit the conclusion you want, that is why you don't want them anywhere near this committee.  This rest is a diversion.  You don't want players paid and don't even want the idea discussed. This problem cannot be fixed until they are paid a market value for their skills.

Gene Smith, that's how his contract was written. Maybe he donated the money to charity, who knows. As an AD he is tasked with creating a program that can succeed and if they do succeed, he is rewarded. He has to create that environment by hiring the right coaches, having the right facilities in place, the support system (tutors, etc).

You just made the perfect argument for compensating athletes.  Instead, you want the money to stay with the crime bosses.

You probably do not see what a hypocrite you are arguing this after arguing there is no money in college sports.

And stop the charity crap.  He bought a BMW so he can drive to meetings to argue why athletes that paid for his car cannot get paid themself.

Money in college athletics.  Go read the NCAA balance sheet and come back to me.  That crap ton of money you talk about, where does it go?  Educate yourself.

The NCAA does not make the money,  The individual schools amke the money.  You know this.

Larry Brown.  Yes, Larry Brown.  Hard to take you seriously when Larry Brown made your list for anything.

Hard to take you seriously when you think JT3 is acceptable.

Show me where I said JT3 is acceptable?

Crime bosses?  Can there be more hyperbole with your utterances?  Crime bosses?  Again, really hard to take you seriously.

I want to know how you plan on paying only SOME athletes and not all 700,000 of them? How are you going to do this without totally destroying college athletics and the opportunities for men, women, many of color?  That's what I want to know.  Cuban, Bilas, you, no one else seems to give a damn or able to answer that question.

I see you make the same mistake so many others do about who I really am, but let the fun continue.

How many times are you going to continue to provide falsehoods about Gene Smith?  That fake news you keep reading is not doing you any good.  It was addressed and fixed, you should be happy.  http://www.cleveland.com/osu/2015/01/ohio_state_athletic_director_g_3.html

[jesmu84]

You are not wrong, but it's also what allows hundreds of thousands of men, women, minorities the chance to participate. If these elite players don't think they are getting their just dues, then go somewhere else. You want to force a model to benefit the few when that is not how the model was created or flourishes. 

You really think college athletics is a mess because some players are not paid their worth?  And your solution is by paying the QB more, this will make things better? Have you really thought this through? What happens when the QB breaks his leg and the third stringer has to come in and saves the game?  Are we pulling the money from the starting QB and giving it to the third stringer?  There are 1000's of scenarios you haven't taken one second to contemplate.  The abuse of the system will destroy college athletics.  In the process, men and women, many of color, will have no opportunities at all because we had to take care of the 1%ers.

Ah. The American way!

[B. McBannerson]

Ah. The American way!

But that isn't the American way, so why are we trying to limit those opportunities?

[B. McBannerson]

Jiggy

Can you tell us all how you are going to pay market rate, in other words not everyone is treated equally all while handling the non-revenue sports, Title IX, etc?

If you can point me to what Jay Bilas has said on this, that would also be appreciated. 

[Herman Cain]

It means Ed O'Bannon is never been about what is right for college basketball and was always looking for the take. 

This is your opinion about what is right for college athletics.  And yes, many hold this view.  But elite players (the top 10% to 20%) often do not.  That is why they choose schools based on mostly non-academic reasons (the coach, potential for winning, playing time, TV exposure, and, yes, how much money they get under the table.)

When was the last time a MU basketball recruit said the business school or engineering school factored into their decision?  When was the last time a MU basketball players graduated from one of these programs (not counting walk-ons)?

Condi Rice, tell me again how schools are profiteering from student athletes when almost no schools profits from athletics?  Furthermore, tell me how schools profit from women's hoops, field hockey, volleyball, men's track?  Or go further and see Stanford attendance when they were good and bad.  Yes, attendance somewhat better when good, but it's not as if no one showed up when they were bad.  People come to watch Stanford, not necessarily who the QB or running back is.

tOSU Board of Trustees, why does AD Gene Smith get $18,000 everytime a non-revenue athlete wins an NCAA championship?  I was told there is no more in college sports.

Northwestern Board of Trustees, what are you spending $200 million on athletic facilities that will open next year and arguably be one of the best practice facilities in all college sports?  Why are you spending this kind of money when there is no money in college sports?

Can we please stop with the canard that no money exists in college sports?  There is, we just elect to spend it elsewhere (AD bonuses and facilities) and then plead poor.


David Robinson, NAVAL Academy. Do you realize how hard that is to get in? He did, and flourished. Long NBA career. Man of character. Yes, two kids also in college athletics.  Show me 300,000 people with his character, played in the NBA, got into a school like Navy on academic merit, and has two DI kids?  How about maybe there are 10 people in the world that can make that claim.

No argument about Robinson but, again, the character is not the qualification for this committee.  It about recognizing the problem and offering difficult solutions.  He will not do this.  Ditto Condi, Ditto Grant Hill, Ditto that worthless scumbag Washington Lawyer.


Mark Cuban, you just wait to see the fun stuff that comes out on him if he runs for POTUS.

Cuban's day job makes him one of the most qualified people in the country to advise on one-and-done college basketball players.  He also has strong opinions about it (he does not like it).

This committee will start meeting in November and offer its conclusions in April.  It finishes over a year before Cuban has to make a decision about running for POTUS.  He has the time and motivation to do it.

Emmert is doing what the university Presidents asked him to do. He could leave the NCAA tomorrow and make more money doing something else with a lot less headaches.

Puhlease.  Emmert is the problem and yes chicos I know you worked with these scumbags so you feel a need to defend them.


Bilas needs to articulate the entire position, not just a sound byte.  His stances come across as not even acknowledging the other 700000 student-athletes, as if they don't exist.

So Robinson can have no opinion about any of this stuff because it does not think about it and we are all supposed to gush because he got into the NAVAL academy?  On the other hand, Bilas has thought about this stuff and has an opinion and his standard is a 500-page detailed analysis of it?  And, no, it is not sound bytes.  He has written extensively about all these issues.  Try your friend google.

Fact is you don't want to pay athletes and neither does Emmert and the rest of the crime bosses.  Bilas does, Cuban does, O'Bannon does and because they don't fit the conclusion you want, that is why you don't want them anywhere near this committee.  This rest is a diversion.  You don't want players paid and don't even want the idea discussed. This problem cannot be fixed until they are paid a market value for their skills.

Gene Smith, that's how his contract was written. Maybe he donated the money to charity, who knows. As an AD he is tasked with creating a program that can succeed and if they do succeed, he is rewarded. He has to create that environment by hiring the right coaches, having the right facilities in place, the support system (tutors, etc).

You just made the perfect argument for compensating athletes.  Instead, you want the money to stay with the crime bosses.

You probably do not see what a hypocrite you are arguing this after arguing there is no money in college sports.

And stop the charity crap.  He bought a BMW so he can drive to meetings to argue why athletes that paid for his car cannot get paid themself.

Money in college athletics.  Go read the NCAA balance sheet and come back to me.  That crap ton of money you talk about, where does it go?  Educate yourself.

The NCAA does not make the money,  The individual schools amke the money.  You know this.

Larry Brown.  Yes, Larry Brown.  Hard to take you seriously when Larry Brown made your list for anything.

Hard to take you seriously when you think JT3 is acceptable.

These Blue Ribbon commissions are actually put in place so the territorial outcomes you are afraid of actually don't occur.  In fact many of the people who you might think have an inherent conflict are in reality looking for a face saving vehicle to allow the necessary changes to be made.

I know you are a student of the financial markets and may remember the Orange County bankruptcy and pension meltdown. The State of California put together a panel with all sorts of fancy people on it to recommend changes etc.  The reality was all the work was done by young professional staff of the big wigs. I was among a handful of staffers and we worked behind the scenes to develop the recommendations etc . The Big Names rubber stamped the recommendations with little comment, and were given scripts to say things  in the hearings  that made themselves sound knowledgeable.

Not all of these commissions workout well, but a number do because the combined good is better than the individual interests in most cases.

[jesmu84]

But that isn't the American way, so why are we trying to limit those opportunities?

Oh. Right. Tricke-down economics and all that. I forgot about the success that comes from catering to the 1%ers

[TheyWereCones]

This is the easiest part.  You give each sport a budget, based on how important that sport is to the school, and then you let the coach decide how to allocate the resources.  This is exactly how it works now.  The resource now is scholarship and the coach decides who to allocate it too to produce the best possible product.  Now we will give them some funds for "payment."

So, yes you could decide that Women's Volleyball only gets a scholarship and no "payment" and then while allocating a lot of money for "payment" to Men's Basketball.

Bilas has argued this going as far as saying if you pay a kid (like Lousiville did with Bowen) that he signs a contract.  That kid is responsible for paying taxes, maintaining a minimum GPA, staying a certain number of years (no early jumping into the draft unless the team drafting you wants to buy out the school's contract)a moral clause, etc.  Should they violate any of these, they forfeit some of their payment.  Want to be treated like a professional, then you get all of it.

Like I said 80% to 90% of the kids are well paid with a scholarship.  The rest are free to get money above the table with stipulations.

What I described is how the world works.  It is how everyone's job works (unless they work for the Government).  It is precisely because NCAA sports do not work this way which is at the root of all their issues.

-------------

The unknown is Title IX.  That does not cover payment because it was not considered when the law was written.  This rule change could not violate it ... the football team gets better resources than the Women's field hockey team.  No one argues that equal resources need to spent, just equal number of scholarships.

I pretty much agree with 4to5years on this. There are too many issues to possibly list them all, but here are a few:

1. What happens when student athletes who are paid less outperform those who are paid more? It would turn into the pros, where money is the focal point, and maybe I'm more of a purist, but I love college basketball for the team aspect of it and not watching 19-year olds whining about money. If they are good enough at the game, they can make a good living on their talent after college. If not, they have an education to fall back on (or at least they had the opportunity to do that).

2. I don't get where this new budget or these new funds come from. So now everyone in your model gets a scholarship PLUS the opportunity to be paid by the school, so I guess each school better add a pretty big line item to their fiscal planning. This immediately turns the schools who can afford the most to buy the best players a la Yankees, Cubs, etc. I don't want to see the richest schools winning all the time. Keep that in the pros.

3. What revenue does a men's lacrosse bench player bring to the university? In that case, I think I brought MU more value by safely transporting students around campus as a L.I.M.O. driver. Maybe I should have received a full ride for that? If you want to look at it that way, why should a school pay anything, even tuition, for the "80 to 90% who don't matter" to essentially fulfill their dreams in a sport that doesn't drive school revenue?

4. Why not pay high school athletes? My high school team was ranked top 5 in MN my senior year, and we made the school a crapload of money from ticket/concession sales. Why shouldn't I have been paid since that's how the real world works?

Keep the money in the pros. It would destroy any sense of purity in the college game. They have their whole lives ahead of them to earn as much money as they want. If they don't like it, they don't have to play. No one is forcing them to play college basketball. No one is forcing them to play all four years. Maybe removing the NBA rule that causes most to play for one year would be a solution that you are more in favor of, that would also certainly be a thousand times easier to implement? Whatever the case, college sports would be destroyed by greed if you start introducing individual payments.

[dgies9156]

Want to solve the problems of college athletics generally? It's real simple:

Tax it.

That's right, stop treating public universities as a charity and start treating them as a business. Which means they pay federal, state and even local taxes. It means that tOSU and the Dallas Cowboys are treated the same way, as for-profit entities.

Yeup, that means it is up to the Internal Revenue Service, state Departments of Revenue and even local taxing districts to collect income and property taxes. And it means that athletes are taxed on the value of their compensation -- in this case, scholarships are barter transactions.

Yes, I know, you purists out there will cite some antiquated sense of amateurism.  But that went out the window years ago with shoe contracts, national television contracts, prostitutes and sham courses that keep athletes who otherwise would never meet a university's admission standards eligible.

There's probably a law that prevents college athletics taxation but perhaps Congress could find some time between tax reform, immigration, health care and bashing Harvey Weinstein to change this.

Just a thought.

[TinyTimsLittleBrother]

I pretty much agree with 4to5years on this. There are too many issues to possibly list them all, but here are a few:

1. What happens when student athletes who are paid less outperform those who are paid more? It would turn into the pros, where money is the focal point, and maybe I'm more of a purist, but I love college basketball for the team aspect of it and not watching 19-year olds whining about money. If they are good enough at the game, they can make a good living on their talent after college. If not, they have an education to fall back on (or at least they had the opportunity to do that).

2. I don't get where this new budget or these new funds come from. So now everyone in your model gets a scholarship PLUS the opportunity to be paid by the school, so I guess each school better add a pretty big line item to their fiscal planning. This immediately turns the schools who can afford the most to buy the best players a la Yankees, Cubs, etc. I don't want to see the richest schools winning all the time. Keep that in the pros.

3. What revenue does a men's lacrosse bench player bring to the university? In that case, I think I brought MU more value by safely transporting students around campus as a L.I.M.O. driver. Maybe I should have received a full ride for that? If you want to look at it that way, why should a school pay anything, even tuition, for the "80 to 90% who don't matter" to essentially fulfill their dreams in a sport that doesn't drive school revenue?

4. Why not pay high school athletes? My high school team was ranked top 5 in MN my senior year, and we made the school a crapload of money from ticket/concession sales. Why shouldn't I have been paid since that's how the real world works?

Keep the money in the pros. It would destroy any sense of purity in the college game. They have their whole lives ahead of them to earn as much money as they want. If they don't like it, they don't have to play. No one is forcing them to play college basketball. No one is forcing them to play all four years. Maybe removing the NBA rule that causes most to play for one year would be a solution that you are more in favor of, that would also certainly be a thousand times easier to implement? Whatever the case, college sports would be destroyed by greed if you start introducing individual payments.

“Destroy the sense of purity in the college game?”

Do you believe in fairies and unicorns too?

I agree that paying the players beyond a scholarship is impractical for many reasons stated here. But there is nothing inpure about earning what you are worth according to the market.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I feel like this argument always becomes two extremes. "Pay them like pros!" and "They are already paid enough!" What if we just increased their stipends a little bit. A nice middle ground. Make sure we don't have any starving athletes but also doesn't destroy college sports as we know it.

[Bocephys]

I feel like this argument always becomes two extremes. "Pay them like pros!" and "They are already paid enough!" What if we just increased their stipends a little bit. A nice middle ground. Make sure we don't have any starving athletes but also doesn't destroy college sports as we know it.

Isn't that what the "full cost of attendance" initiative was supposed to do?

[B. McBannerson]

I feel like this argument always becomes two extremes. "Pay them like pros!" and "They are already paid enough!" What if we just increased their stipends a little bit. A nice middle ground. Make sure we don't have any starving athletes but also doesn't destroy college sports as we know it.

Because it never is just a little bit.  In two years, it will be a little bit more.  And in four years, more.  And then someone else will sue and say it needs to be 10X more. 

Why is it that no one will answer the simple questions. What are you doing about TitleIX? What are you doing about non-revenue sports? If paying the basketball and football players means losing 40% of the student athletes in non-revenue sports, and the opportunities those afford, is that worth it?

[CTWarrior]

Isn't that what the "full cost of attendance" initiative was supposed to do?

My niece was a big time NCAA women's basketball recruit and was told by an unnamed northern ACC school that with the food stipends, etc that they are allowed to give, if she didn't graduate with $30K in the bank, she was doing something wrong.  They are not starving.

[Galway Eagle]

Because it never is just a little bit.  In two years, it will be a little bit more.  And in four years, more.  And then someone else will sue and say it needs to be 10X more. 

Why is it that no one will answer the simple questions. What are you doing about TitleIX? What are you doing about non-revenue sports? If paying the basketball and football players means losing 40% of the student athletes in non-revenue sports, and the opportunities those afford, is that worth it?

This is the one that always makes sense to me. Plus it’s important to remember that the same sports are not uniformly revenue. Awhile back crack sidewalks ranked revenue sports at all the D1 schools and it showed some managed a profit from hockey for example. Does that mean those hockey players get paid but the ones at schools where it’s not a moneymaker don’t get paid?