Time Cover: It's Time to Pay College Athletes

[Tugg Speedman]

TIME Cover Story: It's Time to Pay College Athletes

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2151167,00.html

College sports are mass entertainment. It's time to fully reward players for their work

This week's TIME's cover story, on newsstands starting Sept. 6 and available to subscribers here, makes a case for paying college athletes. This debate has been simmering for years, but received new urgency after Texas A&M quarterback Johnny Manziel allegedly received money for signing autographs earlier this year. The NCAA and Texas A&M determined that Manziel did not take money, but when the "scandal" broke in August, the most pressing question was: why shouldn't he? "That's crazy to me that it's not allowed," says Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson, who starred at Oklahoma. "Actors, actresses--these people can sign things and get paid for it. How come this kid can't? How come a kid that's at a high level, that's going to be offered a big amount of money, can't sit down and be like, 'Damn, this is my decision?'"

Change, in some form, is coming to college sports. The power football schools seem intent on at least offering a $2,000 stipend to scholarship athletes. Athletes are starting to speak up too. Chris Brunette, a senior offensive lineman who plays for Georgia, is a pro prospect. But he knows he can suffer a career-ending injury at any time. "The NFL is not promised at all," says Burnette. "For so many college athletes, at no other time in our lives will we be as valuable. To be able to capitalize on that would be great."

[GGGG]

Dan Wetzel is spot on here.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf--latest-college-scandals-again-reveal-folly-of-ncaa-rules-210822795.html

[ChicosBailBonds]

1)  Time Magazine still exists?
2)  We might go to war with Syria and that is the little blurb at the top and we're worrying about paying college athletes?
3) Dan Wetzel, who I love, actually believes the Olympics are MORE POPULAR now with pros....I would like to know what he is using as a criteria.  There was something special watching the US hockey team win the Gold in 1980, nothing approaches it anymore.  Watching the US men's basketball team in the Olympics might be the greatest waste of air out there in sports.  To each their own, but the Olympics for a lot of people took a big step back when they let the pros in

In every one of these articles about "it's time to pay the players" they never address all the other sports, TitleIX, or even what do do with the 50% of college football and 70% of college basketball that can't afford it.

It's a classic knee jerk article...the flavor of the day....ultimately saying since it's being done, just open up the gates.  It's the legalize drugs argument.  It's the immigration argument.  It's the piracy argument.  Basically, since some people are doing it, just let everyone do it.

Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

[Tugg Speedman]

Most studies I've seen suggest that the public is more interested in watching pros in the Olympics. 

* more interested in watching pros in tennis and hockey
* big endorsement deals, and frequent commercial appearances, make Phelps, Bolt, Shawn White and woman's beach volleyball, figure skating and gymnastics household names.  That makes watching these sports more popular.

Yes, you give up the stories like the 1980 Hockey team, but in that case, it was only after they advanced out of division play that everyone got interested.  That means it was only the last two or three games that people paid attention to.

Finally count me among those think college sports get better when players get paid their true worth.  The Olympics did.  Pros does not necessarily mean the schools have to pay.  Let Manziel do commercials.  If Blue could get endorsement deals in Milwaukee, he might have stayed another year.

[MerrittsMustache]

1)  Time Magazine still exists?
2)  We might go to war with Syria and that is the little blurb at the top and we're worrying about paying college athletes?
3) Dan Wetzel, who I love, actually believes the Olympics are MORE POPULAR now with pros....I would like to know what he is using as a criteria.  There was something special watching the US hockey team win the Gold in 1980, nothing approaches it anymore.  Watching the US men's basketball team in the Olympics might be the greatest waste of air out there in sports.  To each their own, but the Olympics for a lot of people took a big step back when they let the pros in

In every one of these articles about "it's time to pay the players" they never address all the other sports, TitleIX, or even what do do with the 50% of college football and 70% of college basketball that can't afford it.

It's a classic knee jerk article...the flavor of the day....ultimately saying since it's being done, just open up the gates.  It's the legalize drugs argument.  It's the immigration argument.  It's the piracy argument.  Basically, since some people are doing it, just let everyone do it.

Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

Last week's cover was about Obama and Syria.

I agree with most of the rest of your post. However, the Time article does briefly mention Title IX, how a lot of schools couldn't afford to pay players (he says only about 60 could) and IIRC states that only football and men's basketball players could be paid since those sports generate revenue. In other words, the author is willing to overlook some major issues so that Johnny Football, Jabari Parker, et al can have some money in their pockets.

The Time article also mentions that paying players wouldn't stop a school like Lehigh (who theoretically couldn't pay players) from beating a team like Duke in the NCAA Tournament. What he fails to realize is that it's very possible that instead of playing for free and being the star at Lehigh, CJ McCollum may have taken a salary to be the 8th man at Duke.

[melissasmooth]

Last week's cover was about Obama and Syria.

I agree with most of the rest of your post. However, the Time article does briefly mention Title IX, how a lot of schools couldn't afford to pay players (he says only about 60 could) and IIRC states that only football and men's basketball players could be paid since those sports generate revenue. In other words, the author is willing to overlook some major issues so that Johnny Football, Jabari Parker, et al can have some money in their pockets.

The Time article also mentions that paying players wouldn't stop a school like Lehigh (who theoretically couldn't pay players) from beating a team like Duke in the NCAA Tournament. What he fails to realize is that it's very possible that instead of playing for free and being the star at Lehigh, CJ McCollum may have taken a salary to be the 8th man at Duke.

I think a lot of schools, including Marquette, will just end up dropping division I sports.

[MerrittsMustache]

I think a lot of schools, including Marquette, will just end up dropping division I sports.

Depending on how the pay scale was created, I think men's basketball would survive. The rest of the D1 sports? Not as likely.

[GGGG]

1)  Time Magazine still exists?
2)  We might go to war with Syria and that is the little blurb at the top and we're worrying about paying college athletes?
3) Dan Wetzel, who I love, actually believes the Olympics are MORE POPULAR now with pros....I would like to know what he is using as a criteria.  There was something special watching the US hockey team win the Gold in 1980, nothing approaches it anymore.  Watching the US men's basketball team in the Olympics might be the greatest waste of air out there in sports.  To each their own, but the Olympics for a lot of people took a big step back when they let the pros in

The larger point is that it was impossible to keep up the sham that was amateurism in the Olympics.  I mean, the US Olympic team that you reference was playing against professionals in pretty much every sense of the word.  If it wanted to, the USOC could still use amateur athletes in the Olympics...but they don't.

Furthermore, I never understood the point of why there was amateurism in the first place.  I guess I don't understand the moral superiority of unpaid athletes versus paid ones.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

The larger point is that it was impossible to keep up the sham that was amateurism in the Olympics.  I mean, the US Olympic team that you reference was playing against professionals in pretty much every sense of the word.  If it wanted to, the USOC could still use amateur athletes in the Olympics...but they don't.

Furthermore, I never understood the point of why there was amateurism in the first place.  I guess I don't understand the moral superiority of unpaid athletes versus paid ones.

I was going to post something almost identical to this.

The reason to change the current system is to get rid of the current sham of amateurism. It creates a false narrative about college athletics and the big name programs making a lot of money off college athletics.

[StillAWarrior]

Depending on how the pay scale was created, I think men's basketball would survive. The rest of the D1 sports? Not as likely.

Would D1 men's basketball survive?  Probably.  Would there still be 347 D1 men's basketball teams?  Doubtful.  I think participation in D1 basketball would fairly quickly drop down to the level of participation in D1 football (FBS). 

[GGGG]

Would D1 men's basketball survive?  Probably.  Would there still be 347 D1 men's basketball teams?  Doubtful.  I think participation in D1 basketball would fairly quickly drop down to the level of participation in D1 football (FBS). 

Which is fine by me.

And here is an article written by a friend of mine that addresses some of this from a football perspective.

http://www.midwestsportsfans.com/2013/09/college-football-scandals-happen-because-we-dont-want-a-clean-sport/

"Why? Why does the NCAA go through this ridiculous charade of having rules which can’t be violated, then look for any possible reason not to put any real teeth in its enforcement? It’s simple. We might claim we want clean football, but more than that, we want Alabama football. We want to see the best taking on the best. We want to claim bragging rights over the person in the next driveway or the next cubicle.

We wanted a playoff, but we also wanted the Famous Idaho Potato Bowl. The NCAA is more than happy to give us both. We want rules, but we want them to be enforced loosely and capriciously because more than we want to feel good about college football, we want to watch it."

[Benny B]

This is idiotic.  See the other thread/article regarding Title IX.  You can't pay the men more than you pay the women, no university is going to be able to pay a $2,000 stipend to every college athlete, and you can't simply drop all non-revenue sports, because you'll be dropping all of the women's sports.

Sorry, but there are laws that will indirectly prohibit paying college athletes.  Now if you want to change Title IX, that's a different argument, but straight-up arguing that college athletes should be paid is as futile as arguing that Texas should be able to secede from the U.S.

[Tugg Speedman]

The larger point is that it was impossible to keep up the sham that was amateurism in the Olympics.  I mean, the US Olympic team that you reference was playing against professionals in pretty much every sense of the word.  If it wanted to, the USOC could still use amateur athletes in the Olympics...but they don't.

Furthermore, I never understood the point of why there was amateurism in the first place.  I guess I don't understand the moral superiority of unpaid athletes versus paid ones.

+1 could not have said it any better

[GGGG]

This is idiotic.  See the other thread/article regarding Title IX.  You can't pay the men more than you pay the women, no university is going to be able to pay a $2,000 stipend to every college athlete, and you can't simply drop all non-revenue sports, because you'll be dropping all of the women's sports.

Sorry, but there are laws that will indirectly prohibit paying college athletes.  Now if you want to change Title IX, that's a different argument, but straight-up arguing that college athletes should be paid is as futile as arguing that Texas should be able to secede from the U.S.

It is way more simple than you are making it out to be.

You upgrade the value of the scholarship to include a stipend.  So for instance, it now becomes tuition, room and board, etc. plus $2,000.  (To use your example.)  That $2,000 would then be part of the partial scholarships that non-revenue sports currently distribute.  So the soccer player that has a .5 scholarship, would get half their tuition, etc. paid, plus $1,000.

[Tugg Speedman]

The Time article also mentions that paying players wouldn't stop a school like Lehigh (who theoretically couldn't pay players) from beating a team like Duke in the NCAA Tournament. What he fails to realize is that it's very possible that instead of playing for free and being the star at Lehigh, CJ McCollum may have taken a salary to be the 8th man at Duke.

I have a different take on this ... MU could be a huge winner if athletes get paid.  (I'm speaking about BB here, not FB)

My assumption is the real money is not coming from a check from the athletic department.  Instead it is coming from endorsement deals, paid meet and greets and boosters.  MU, being in a major metropolitan city, will offer lots of endorsements deal opportunities.  And it greatly increases the profile of the school if its athletes are constantly on TV pitching products.  In this world having Milwaukee is a distinct advantage over Madison, Champaign and Bloomington.  Endorsement deals in those markets will be less money.  Yes the B1G schools have more boosters that can give money, but Milwaukee has a larger TV market that companies can flat out pay more for endorsements.  It all evens out.

Winners are the new BE as they are in major TV markets.  Losers are schools in small TV markets.

Think beyond salaries from the Athletic Department.  That is not where the money is.

[Pakuni]

It is way more simple than you are making it out to be.

You upgrade the value of the scholarship to include a stipend.  So for instance, it now becomes tuition, room and board, etc. plus $2,000.  (To use your example.)  That $2,000 would then be part of the partial scholarships that non-revenue sports currently distribute.  So the soccer player that has a .5 scholarship, would get half their tuition, etc. paid, plus $1,000.

Two thoughts:

1. The notion that a stipend - especially at the levels that have been bandied about (i.e. $2,000 or so) - would eliminate kids taking extra benefits on the side is naive at best.
Not many kids are going to turn down $10,000 from an agent, or trip on a yacht, or a no-show job, or a car from a booster who owns a dealership, because he's getting $166 a month through his scholarship. The only way to significantly reduce the temptation is to pay kids significantly, and almost no one is able or willing to do that.
Also, a small stipend wouldn't change a thing when it comes to issues like improper recruiting and academic fraud.

2. Your proposal above doesn't really solve the Title IX question. Under the law, a school must provide a proportionate amount of total assistance. So if a school is paying 85 football players and 13 men's basketball players a $2,000 stipend, it's going to have to find about 98 female athletes (the exact number determined by participation rates) to award $2,000 stipends. I don't think you can resolve that by giving out half scholarships to female athletes. In fact, that probably puts a school more in violation of Title IX.

[WellsstreetWanderer]

The other part of the argument against, as I have heard advanced, is that they already are being paid: tuition, books, room and board , apparel, laundry done, tutors etc. For most student athletes that is enough to want a scholarship and most, I would think, are satisfied with the education they receive. Sure we all struggled financially in college but knew that it was a sacrifice that would result in a paying job once we achieved a 4 year degree. I assume we are mostly discussing those athletes who are mainly there to reach the Pros; who are the ones breaking the rules.
I know the reaction to scholarship offers that my children and their teammates received were based on the opportunity to receive a good education in return for their efforts on playing fields.

[StillAWarrior]

The other part of the argument against, as I have heard advanced, is that they already are being paid: tuition, books, room and board , apparel, laundry done, tutors etc. For most student athletes that is enough to want a scholarship and most, I would think, are satisfied with the education they receive. Sure we all struggled financially in college but knew that it was a sacrifice that would result in a paying job once we achieved a 4 year degree. I assume we are mostly discussing those athletes who are mainly there to reach the Pros; who are the ones breaking the rules.
I know the reaction to scholarship offers that my children and their teammates received were based on the opportunity to receive a good education in return for their efforts on playing fields.

I think there's a lot of truth to this.  All the kids who have press conferences (and the far, far greater number of athletes in non-revenue sports who don't) never seem terribly upset about signing up to be exploited by the universities.

[GGGG]

Two thoughts:

1. The notion that a stipend - especially at the levels that have been bandied about (i.e. $2,000 or so) - would eliminate kids taking extra benefits on the side is naive at best.
Not many kids are going to turn down $10,000 from an agent, or trip on a yacht, or a no-show job, or a car from a booster who owns a dealership, because he's getting $166 a month through his scholarship. The only way to significantly reduce the temptation is to pay kids significantly, and almost no one is able or willing to do that.
Also, a small stipend wouldn't change a thing when it comes to issues like improper recruiting and academic fraud.

2. Your proposal above doesn't really solve the Title IX question. Under the law, a school must provide a proportionate amount of total assistance. So if a school is paying 85 football players and 13 men's basketball players a $2,000 stipend, it's going to have to find about 98 female athletes (the exact number determined by participation rates) to award $2,000 stipends. I don't think you can resolve that by giving out half scholarships to female athletes. In fact, that probably puts a school more in violation of Title IX.

1. I agree with you.  I was simply addressing Title IX

2. As long as they hand out scholarships in a manner they do now, with the proportion of men to women scholarships being roughly equal to the overall proportion of men to women on campus, they should be fine.  That is why you have so many more women's non-revenue scholarships at places that play football.

It's wikipedia so I am not 100% sure of its accuracy, but you get the drift:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_I_(NCAA)#Scholarship_limits_by_sport

[Pakuni]

2. As long as they hand out scholarships in a manner they do now, with the proportion of men to women scholarships being roughly equal to the overall proportion of men to women on campus, they should be fine.  That is why you have so many more women's non-revenue scholarships at places that play football.

It's wikipedia so I am not 100% sure of its accuracy, but you get the drift:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_I_(NCAA)#Scholarship_limits_by_sport

Agreed, which is why I think this doesn't solve the Title IX problem.
What some like Jay Bilas have proposed - and what I thought you were proposing, though perhaps I misread - to pay athletes in only revenue-producing sports doesn't seem possible under the current law. Whatever you pay the football team, you're going to have to pay the same amount to roughly the same number of women's sports athletes.

Wetzel's argument that Johnny Football isn't the same as a New Hampshire field hockey player is completely correct from an economic standpoint, but Title IX doesn't care about the economic standpoint, nor was it designed to care. And I think it's an uphill/unwinnable battle to re-write federal law to allow a relative handful of college athletes to make money.

[GGGG]

Agreed, which is why I think this doesn't solve the Title IX problem.
What some like Jay Bilas have proposed - and what I thought you were proposing, though perhaps I misread - to pay athletes in only revenue-producing sports doesn't seem possible under the current law. Whatever you pay the football team, you're going to have to pay the same amount to roughly the same number of women's sports athletes.

Yeah you are misreading me.  What I am saying is that if they tack on a stipend on every scholarship (not just revenue producing ones) they should be fine.

The other thing that they could do is allow athletes to profit off of their own name.  That would fall outside of the NCAA rules and Title IX, and then them earn what the free market bears.  So if Manziel wants to earn $50,000 in a summer for autographs, that's just fine.  If a local car dealer wants Chris Otule to be its spokesman, that's fine too.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Most studies I've seen suggest that the public is more interested in watching pros in the Olympics. 

* more interested in watching pros in tennis and hockey
* big endorsement deals, and frequent commercial appearances, make Phelps, Bolt, Shawn White and woman's beach volleyball, figure skating and gymnastics household names.  That makes watching these sports more popular.

Yes, you give up the stories like the 1980 Hockey team, but in that case, it was only after they advanced out of division play that everyone got interested.  That means it was only the last two or three games that people paid attention to.

Finally count me among those think college sports get better when players get paid their true worth.  The Olympics did.  Pros does not necessarily mean the schools have to pay.  Let Manziel do commercials.  If Blue could get endorsement deals in Milwaukee, he might have stayed another year.

I'd love to see the studies.  It's hard to go on ratings performance because you can't compare apples to apples in any Olympics due to time zone changes, coverage (more coverage now than back then), cable channels have some events, games are now every 2 years (Winter, Summer, Winter, etc). 

The problem with the idea of endorsements, they will lead to MASSIVE recruiting nightmares.  Imagine the Kentucky boosters and business folks that can line up endorsement deals for their recruits vs Marquette?  Hell, imagine Wisconsin alumni lining them up in the state and outbidding for recruits MU would normally get.

It would be an absolute disaster.....you could kiss goodbye the idea of small schools, especially in small markets, ever competing again.  An absolute disaster.

[ChicosBailBonds]

The larger point is that it was impossible to keep up the sham that was amateurism in the Olympics.  I mean, the US Olympic team that you reference was playing against professionals in pretty much every sense of the word.  If it wanted to, the USOC could still use amateur athletes in the Olympics...but they don't.

Furthermore, I never understood the point of why there was amateurism in the first place.  I guess I don't understand the moral superiority of unpaid athletes versus paid ones.

Very simple.....VERY SIMPLE.  To attempt, however difficult, to keep a level playing field.   

First of all, the comparison to the Olympics is ridiculous and Dan's comments are ridiculous on it.  The Olympic teams in many cases are funded by governments, or in the case of the US they are funded through federations, corporate sponsors, etc.  It was the Olympics way to try to keep some competitive balance but ALSO to tap into the traditions of the games.  Of course there have been issues with amateurism since day one, just as there have been issues with it in college athletics since day one.  That doesn't mean another way is better. 


Back to college athletics....you already have runaway bidding on coaching salaries which puts many schools out of the competitive arena.  Then you get into the game of facilities, conferences, tv exposure, etc.   All of this already skews many programs from the haves and the have nots.   The NCAA and the member institutions have tried to keep some balance to attempt (it is impossible, but attempt nonetheless) to keep a level playing field where they can.  No one disputes this is impossible, the question is whether it is worthy to pursue.

In my mind, very worthy to pursue.  I truly don't think people understand what happens if you open up the floodgates.  As fractured and broken as the current system is, you risk total destruction by opening it up.  Do people really think that paying a student $2,500 stipend is going to stop under the table payments?  LOL.  Of course not.  If kids are allowed to be endorsed, how on earth is a student athlete in Spokane, WA going to have the opportunity to make the same in endorsements as a kid in NYC, L.A, Chicago, or for that matter at well heeled schools that will do anything to pimp their players like Alabama, UNC, Kentucky, etc? 

And then we get back to the questions at hand that absolutely NO ONE EVER WANTS TO ANSWER.  Title IX.  Non Revenue Sports. Etc, etc.

The current system is broken....the idea of paying players makes broken look like a well working machine.  It will destroy college athletics as we know it.

[GGGG]

Back to college athletics....you already have runaway bidding on coaching salaries which puts many schools out of the competitive arena.  Then you get into the game of facilities, conferences, tv exposure, etc.   All of this already skews many programs from the haves and the have nots.   The NCAA and the member institutions have tried to keep some balance to attempt (it is impossible, but attempt nonetheless) to keep a level playing field where they can.  No one disputes this is impossible, the question is whether it is worthy to pursue.

In my mind, very worthy to pursue.  I truly don't think people understand what happens if you open up the floodgates.  As fractured and broken as the current system is, you risk total destruction by opening it up.  Do people really think that paying a student $2,500 stipend is going to stop under the table payments?  LOL.  Of course not.  If kids are allowed to be endorsed, how on earth is a student athlete in Spokane, WA going to have the opportunity to make the same in endorsements as a kid in NYC, L.A, Chicago, or for that matter at well heeled schools that will do anything to pimp their players like Alabama, UNC, Kentucky, etc? 

And then we get back to the questions at hand that absolutely NO ONE EVER WANTS TO ANSWER.  Title IX.  Non Revenue Sports. Etc, etc.

The current system is broken....the idea of paying players makes broken look like a well working machine.  It will destroy college athletics as we know it.

You do realize that the best players are already going to places like Kentucky...and not to places like Spokane right?  Paying players might accelerate that somehow, but it is hardly the nightmare that your hyperbolic rants portray it to be. 

And if you would take time to read this thread, and the one on Forbes, I have REPEATEDLY ADDRESSED the Title IX issue.  It is nowhere near as big of a problem as you portray it to be.  (surprise, surprise)

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I think there's a lot of truth to this.  All the kids who have press conferences (and the far, far greater number of athletes in non-revenue sports who don't) never seem terribly upset about signing up to be exploited by the universities.

For me, this is everything.

If the kids don't like the deal, or feel they are being exploited, they should look for another place to play.

MLB exploits the hell out of young players until they hit free agency. Guess what? If the players don't like it, they can go play in Japan.

College kids aren't slaves.

A kid with division 1 talent, and decent grades, has a lot of options. Far more options than the average 18 yr old.

[Pakuni]

Yeah you are misreading me.  What I am saying is that if they tack on a stipend on every scholarship (not just revenue producing ones) they should be fine.

Fine how? The amount they're talking about, I think we agree, isn't nearly enough to dissuade athletes from taking impermissible benefits if offered. The kind of money it would take is well above what most schools can or are willing to afford. And it won't make a difference in any of the other maladies facing college athletics.
I think it's great if the kids can get a reasonable stipend, but I don't think it's going to make a bit of a difference.

The other thing that they could do is allow athletes to profit off of their own name.  That would fall outside of the NCAA rules and Title IX, and then them earn what the free market bears.  So if Manziel wants to earn $50,000 in a summer for autographs, that's just fine.  If a local car dealer wants Chris Otule to be its spokesman, that's fine too.

That's fine, but realistically - as you and others have mentioned - this really would benefit only a very small percentage of athletes, even among athletes in the revenue producing sports.
Plus, it opens a whole other can of worms. If these kids are going to sign endorsement deals, who's going to represent them? Who's going to review the contracts? Who's going to decide what products are/are not acceptable? Can college athletes appear in beer ads, or ads for a local sports bar? Can a kid at a Nike school take money for wearing adidas? And how does that affect the school's deal with Nike?
There'd be a lot of issues to resolve.

[GGGG]

Fine how?

From a Title IX perspective.

That's fine, but realistically - as you and others have mentioned - this really would benefit only a very small percentage of athletes, even among athletes in the revenue producing sports.
Plus, it opens a whole other can of worms. If these kids are going to sign endorsement deals, who's going to represent them? Who's going to review the contracts? Who's going to decide what products are/are not acceptable? Can college athletes appear in beer ads, or ads for a local sports bar? Can a kid at a Nike school take money for wearing adidas? And how does that affect the school's deal with Nike?
There'd be a lot of issues to resolve.

They could have agents.  They could endorse whatever is legal for them to endorse.  The shoe contract thing can be worked out.

I'm really not sure why this is such a big deal.  I mean if Johnny Manziel hires an agent, gets signed by Hooters and shoots a few ads and makes some $$ in the process, what is wrong?  Why should that prevent him from playing college football?

[Tugg Speedman]

They could have agents.  They could endorse whatever is legal for them to endorse.  The shoe contract thing can be worked out.

I'm really not sure why this is such a big deal.  I mean if Johnny Manziel hires an agent, gets signed by Hooters and shoots a few ads and makes some $$ in the process, what is wrong?  Why should that prevent him from playing college football?

+1

Imagine Otule doing ads of Aurora Health (Big MU Sponsor) saying they "help keep him on the court."

Gardner pitching Ford Trucks for a Local Dealer

Blue doing Qdoba

And so on.  

Here is a list of MU sponsors.  How many of them would hire players as pitchmen if they could?

http://www.gomarquette.com/sports/nelligan/spec-rel/092512aaf.html

540 ESPN Radio
Aloft Milwaukee Downtown
Ambassador Hotel
Aurora Health Care
Aurora Sinai Medical Center
Aurora Sports Medicine Institute
Beer Capitol Distributors
Bergstrom Corporation
The Bog Golf Course
Bravo!
Bubb's BBQ
Callen Design Group
Carnevor Steakhouse Moderne
CBS Sports
ColorInk
Cricket
Cyganiak Planning, Inc.
Direct Supply, Inc.
Elite Sports Clubs
Forward Dental
Foster Grant
Goodwill of Southeastern Wisconsin
Gordon Flesch
Grand Appliance & TV
The Great Frame Up
Heartland Value Fund
The Hilton
Jim Phillips LLC
Jimmy John's
Joey Buona's
McCormick Law Office
McDonald's
Midwest Foods
MillerCoors
Milwaukee Orthopaedic Group, Ltd.
The Opus Group
Palermo's Pizza
Pepsi
Pizza Hut
Qdoba
OfficeMax
R.A. Smith
Robert W. Baird & Co.
Saz's
State Farm
Steinhafels
SURG Restaurant Group
Schwanke-Kasten Jewelers
Time Warner Cable
Umami Moto
United Health Care
U.S. Bank
Upper90 SportsPub
Yellowbook
Ward's House of Prime
We Energies
West Bend Insurance
Wisconsin Dells
Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

+1

Imagine Otule doing ads of Aurora Health (Big MU Sponsor) saying they "help keep him on the court."

Gardner pitching Ford Trucks for a Local Dealer

Blue doing Qdoba

And so on.  

Here is a list of MU sponsors.  How many of them would hire players as pitchmen if they could?

http://www.gomarquette.com/sports/nelligan/spec-rel/092512aaf.html

540 ESPN Radio
Aloft Milwaukee Downtown
Ambassador Hotel
Aurora Health Care
Aurora Sinai Medical Center
Aurora Sports Medicine Institute
Beer Capitol Distributors
Bergstrom Corporation
The Bog Golf Course
Bravo!
Bubb's BBQ
Callen Design Group
Carnevor Steakhouse Moderne
CBS Sports
ColorInk
Cricket
Cyganiak Planning, Inc.
Direct Supply, Inc.
Elite Sports Clubs
Forward Dental
Foster Grant
Goodwill of Southeastern Wisconsin
Gordon Flesch
Grand Appliance & TV
The Great Frame Up
Heartland Value Fund
The Hilton
Jim Phillips LLC
Jimmy John's
Joey Buona's
McCormick Law Office
McDonald's
Midwest Foods
MillerCoors
Milwaukee Orthopaedic Group, Ltd.
The Opus Group
Palermo's Pizza
Pepsi
Pizza Hut
Qdoba
OfficeMax
R.A. Smith
Robert W. Baird & Co.
Saz's
State Farm
Steinhafels
SURG Restaurant Group
Schwanke-Kasten Jewelers
Time Warner Cable
Umami Moto
United Health Care
U.S. Bank
Upper90 SportsPub
Yellowbook
Ward's House of Prime
We Energies
West Bend Insurance
Wisconsin Dells
Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board

Here's the thing:

Steve "the homer" True is more famous and well known than any of the players on the roster.

How many sponsorship deals does he have?

I don't know if there is as much spokesperson $ out there as you think.

[ChicosBailBonds]

+1

Imagine Otule doing ads of Aurora Health (Big MU Sponsor) saying they "help keep him on the court."

Gardner pitching Ford Trucks for a Local Dealer

Blue doing Qdoba

And so on.  

Here is a list of MU sponsors.  How many of them would hire players as pitchmen if they could?

http://www.gomarquette.com/sports/nelligan/spec-rel/092512aaf.html

540 ESPN Radio
Aloft Milwaukee Downtown
Ambassador Hotel
Aurora Health Care
Aurora Sinai Medical Center
Aurora Sports Medicine Institute
Beer Capitol Distributors
Bergstrom Corporation
The Bog Golf Course
Bravo!
Bubb's BBQ
Callen Design Group
Carnevor Steakhouse Moderne
CBS Sports
ColorInk
Cricket
Cyganiak Planning, Inc.
Direct Supply, Inc.
Elite Sports Clubs
Forward Dental
Foster Grant
Goodwill of Southeastern Wisconsin
Gordon Flesch
Grand Appliance & TV
The Great Frame Up
Heartland Value Fund
The Hilton
Jim Phillips LLC
Jimmy John's
Joey Buona's
McCormick Law Office
McDonald's
Midwest Foods
MillerCoors
Milwaukee Orthopaedic Group, Ltd.
The Opus Group
Palermo's Pizza
Pepsi
Pizza Hut
Qdoba
OfficeMax
R.A. Smith
Robert W. Baird & Co.
Saz's
State Farm
Steinhafels
SURG Restaurant Group
Schwanke-Kasten Jewelers
Time Warner Cable
Umami Moto
United Health Care
U.S. Bank
Upper90 SportsPub
Yellowbook
Ward's House of Prime
We Energies
West Bend Insurance
Wisconsin Dells
Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board

Another....seriously....you are kidding yourself. I was in the sponsorship business for a LONG LONG time in sports.  College, professional, and then I was on the other end buying it for DIRECTV for many years before switching roles.  Buying it for teams, players (Peyton and Eli Manning, etc), leagues, stadiums, arenas, special events (Quarterback Challenge, basketball tournaments, etc).

It's nice to have a pretty list like this, but that's not how it works.  Marquette sells sponsorships today, and many on that list are merely buying radio spots or whatever from their media budgets...it's taking dollars from one bucket and putting elsewhere, doesn't mean they have a Marquette liking at all.  MU would be at such a disadvantage compared to Wisconsin in this state it would be laughable.  The whole deal with sponsorships is who makes the decisions to purchase....well at least that is a big part of it.  For every company that has a high placed MU person in the C class ranks or the purchasing decision chair, there will be 5 companies with UW graduates based purely on numbers.  We would get our clocks cleaned in the money game.

[Eldon]

Yea, good point.  I would say Buzz is the most recognizable face and I don't ever recall seeing him on TV doing ads or any other sponsorships for that matter.  I do, however, remember Bruce Pearl doing ads/promotions for Ernie Von Schleidorn (sp?).  But, of course, maybe Buzz just turns them down.

[GGGG]

Yea, good point.  I would say Buzz is the most recognizable face and I don't ever recall seeing him on TV doing ads or any other sponsorships for that matter.  I do, however, remember Bruce Pearl doing ads/promotions for Ernie Von Schleidorn (sp?).  But, of course, maybe Buzz just turns them down.

Bruce Pearl doing commercials for Dirty Ernie is full of delicious irony.

[Tugg Speedman]

Here's the thing:

Steve "the homer" True is more famous and well known than any of the players on the roster.

How many sponsorship deals does he have?

I don't know if there is as much spokesperson $ out there as you think.

Yea, good point.  I would say Buzz is the most recognizable face and I don't ever recall seeing him on TV doing ads or any other sponsorships for that matter.  I do, however, remember Bruce Pearl doing ads/promotions for Ernie Von Schleidorn (sp?).  But, of course, maybe Buzz just turns them down.

I don't live in Milwaukee so don't watch the local broadcasts.  I do listen to the games on the stream and Buzz and Homer are pitching crap ALL THE TIME on the radio commercials.

[Tugg Speedman]

Another....seriously....you are kidding yourself. I was in the sponsorship business for a LONG LONG time in sports.  College, professional, and then I was on the other end buying it for DIRECTV for many years before switching roles.  Buying it for teams, players (Peyton and Eli Manning, etc), leagues, stadiums, arenas, special events (Quarterback Challenge, basketball tournaments, etc).

It's nice to have a pretty list like this, but that's not how it works.  Marquette sells sponsorships today, and many on that list are merely buying radio spots or whatever from their media budgets...it's taking dollars from one bucket and putting elsewhere, doesn't mean they have a Marquette liking at all.  MU would be at such a disadvantage compared to Wisconsin in this state it would be laughable.  The whole deal with sponsorships is who makes the decisions to purchase....well at least that is a big part of it.  For every company that has a high placed MU person in the C class ranks or the purchasing decision chair, there will be 5 companies with UW graduates based purely on numbers.  We would get our clocks cleaned in the money game.

Not in Milwaukee

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I don't live in Milwaukee so don't watch the local broadcasts.  I do listen to the games on the stream and Buzz and Homer are pitching crap ALL THE TIME on the radio commercials.

Homer reads the assigned spots (as all play by play guys do), and voices a couple of commercials (Saz's and Cyganiack (sp)). Same for Buzz. I think he's in 2 spots.

That's 2. Let's double it and say it's 4.

4 spots for the 2 most visible members of the program. That's not a lot.

What is your expectation? That the top 2 or 3 players will make thousands of dollars on endorsements? I just don't see it happening. There isn't really a need in the marketplace for 20yr old pitchmen doing local ads.

[GGGG]

Homer reads the assigned spots (as all play by play guys do), and voices a couple of commercials (Saz's and Cyganiack (sp)). Same for Buzz. I think he's in 2 spots.

That's 2. Let's double it and say it's 4.

4 spots for the 2 most visible members of the program. That's not a lot.

What is your expectation? That the top 2 or 3 players will make thousands of dollars on endorsements? I just don't see it happening. There isn't really a need in the marketplace for 20yr old pitchmen doing local ads.

Exactly.

I mean, how many Green Bay Packers pitch ads locally? 

[Tugg Speedman]

If you're right then the NCAA should allow it as it will not change anything, correct?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Not in Milwaukee

Again, I think you are way underestimating the reality out there and how marketing organizations who have to spend those dollars will do so.  Just look at the Journal Sentinel or the local television stations and the amount of time they give Wisconsin vs Marquette right there in Milwaukee.


Let's put it this way, if I was at a Milwaukee company and in marketing \ advertising \ sponsorships (roles I've held in the past) and I'm looking to see where I am going to put my dollars in Milwaukee (assuming sports fans were a target of mine).  I can guarantee you in that situation for SURE I am going with Wisconsin.  I have a fiduciary responsibility to make those dollars work and to touch as many as I can. There are far more Wisconsin alumni and fans in Milwaukee than Marquette.  Now, I may decide to split my budgets and put some dollars also into Marquette, but I'm definitely going to support Wisconsin.  Oh, and because MU doesn't have football, from August to November I'm also going to support Wisconsin football and the halo effect that brings.

Again, MU will be a small piece of the pie. Sure you will have a few, smaller companies that put their dollars behind MU because of alumni ties, or whatever.  But a company like American Family, Northwestern Mutual, Manpower, Harley, etc....they cannot afford to advertise just with MU...they can certainly afford to advertise just with UW, they MIGHT advertise with both, but alienating MU fans is a drop in the bucket vs alienating UW fans. 

[GGGG]

Chicos, you are very likely correct.

But really who at the UW is going to get big time promotion deals?  And even if you could roll back time and could say "well Montee Ball would," I would argue that it's not a bad thing anyway.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

If you're right then the NCAA should allow it as it will not change anything, correct?

I am right.

You seem to think there is a significant amount of funds out there for MU players to make with local endorsements.

I see no indication that there is.

[MerrittsMustache]

Again, I think you are way underestimating the reality out there and how marketing organizations who have to spend those dollars will do so.  Just look at the Journal Sentinel or the local television stations and the amount of time they give Wisconsin vs Marquette right there in Milwaukee.


Let's put it this way, if I was at a Milwaukee company and in marketing \ advertising \ sponsorships (roles I've held in the past) and I'm looking to see where I am going to put my dollars in Milwaukee (assuming sports fans were a target of mine).  I can guarantee you in that situation for SURE I am going with Wisconsin.  I have a fiduciary responsibility to make those dollars work and to touch as many as I can. There are far more Wisconsin alumni and fans in Milwaukee than Marquette.  Now, I may decide to split my budgets and put some dollars also into Marquette, but I'm definitely going to support Wisconsin.  Oh, and because MU doesn't have football, from August to November I'm also going to support Wisconsin football and the halo effect that brings.

Again, MU will be a small piece of the pie. Sure you will have a few, smaller companies that put their dollars behind MU because of alumni ties, or whatever.  But a company like American Family, Northwestern Mutual, Manpower, Harley, etc....they cannot afford to advertise just with MU...they can certainly afford to advertise just with UW, they MIGHT advertise with both, but alienating MU fans is a drop in the bucket vs alienating UW fans.  

That's true at the macro level but what about on the micro level?

For example, instead of having the PA announcer read an ad during a timeout or playing a generic commercial on the Jumbotron, would a company have any interest in throwing Jamil Wilson a couple hundred bucks to do a 30-second Jumbotron spot? Or a firm paying Gardner to wear their logo on his shirt during a Big East Tourney postgame presser. I think that's more the type of "endorsement" that college athletes would be receiving.

[ChicosBailBonds]

That's true at the macro level but what about on the micro level?

For example, instead of having the PA announcer read an ad during a timeout or playing a generic commercial on the Jumbotron, would a company have any interest in throwing Jamil Wilson a couple hundred bucks to do a 30-second Jumbotron spot? Or a firm paying Gardner to wear their logo on his shirt during a Big East Tourney postgame presser. I think that's more the type of "endorsement" that college athletes would be receiving.

Perhaps, but there in comes the rub again.  How is that going to be policed?  Does Jamil get $500 for doing that while Wiggins gets $5000?    The Pandora's Box on this thing is gigantic, and I certainly recognize that this crap is already going on at some places.  I think we are inviting the dirty to get way dirtier.

[Tugg Speedman]

I am right.

You seem to think there is a significant amount of funds out there for MU players to make with local endorsements.

I see no indication that there is.

Buzz cannot do 30 endorsements as it dilutes his brand.  He can only do 2 to 4.  Ditto Homer.  As noted above, they already do 2 to 4.

That leaves 25 other endorsers with some unknown announcer explaining their product.  If Buzz and Homer are already full, who else would you take?

All I'm arguing the number is above zero.  You seem steadfast that the number is zero and not moving off that.

[Tugg Speedman]

Perhaps, but there in comes the rub again.  How is that going to be policed?  Does Jamil get $500 for doing that while Wiggins gets $5000?    The Pandora's Box on this thing is gigantic, and I certainly recognize that this crap is already going on at some places.  I think we are inviting the dirty to get way dirtier.

Why does it have to be policed?  Free market will take care of it.

[MerrittsMustache]

Perhaps, but there in comes the rub again.  How is that going to be policed?  Does Jamil get $500 for doing that while Wiggins gets $5000?    The Pandora's Box on this thing is gigantic, and I certainly recognize that this crap is already going on at some places.  I think we are inviting the dirty to get way dirtier.

If the NCAA feels that it's necessary, they could cap individual endorsements. Either way, players should have to sign contracts that come through the university's compliance office.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Buzz cannot do 30 endorsements as it dilutes his brand.  He can only do 2 to 4.  Ditto Homer.  As noted above, they already do 2 to 4.

That leaves 25 other endorsers with some unknown announcer explaining their product.  If Buzz and Homer are already full, who else would you take?

All I'm arguing the number is above zero.  You seem steadfast that the number is zero and not moving off that.

Fine the number is above zero.

But, initially you implied that it would be a big opportunity for student athletes to cash in.

I'm just not seeing it.

Also, Homer is a whore. He would put his name on anything/everything (as well he should).

There just isn't that much demand for "local celebrity" spokespeople. If there was, Randall Cobb, James Jones, AJ Hawk, Carlos Gomez etc. etc. would be on billboards all over the place.

They aren't. The top guys are going to get theirs. But, the most popular MU player is about 1/10 as popular as James Jones, and therefore, not likely to generate much (if any) revenue.

[jesmu84]

Why does it have to be policed?  Free market will take care of it.

What's to prevent a booster from telling a recruit if he comes to University X, he'll guarantee $50K for a couple of endorsements? Doesn't the "free market" go out the window when a big time booster wants a big time recruit at their university?

[ChicosBailBonds]

If the NCAA feels that it's necessary, they could cap individual endorsements. Either way, players should have to sign contracts that come through the university's compliance office.

Do we really think that will work?  Today the cap on payments is $0, and it doesn't work.  The NCAA has no way to police this stuff, they don't have the resources to police it.  No different, in my opinion, to the jobs these kids are allowed to do today....how often do we already find out the kid never did the job, or was grossly overpaid for the job at hand.  Besides, it would be so easy to cook the books.   "Here Mr. Dekker is your $500 paycheck for the commercial spot limited as the max by the NCAA"  <and under the table is another $5G for all the gas money to get you down here to the studio...good job>

It just becomes another shell game that is tacitly endorsed but difficult to police. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

Chicos, you are very likely correct.

But really who at the UW is going to get big time promotion deals?  And even if you could roll back time and could say "well Montee Ball would," I would argue that it's not a bad thing anyway.

I would use it as a recruiting tool.  Come to UW and I'll guarantee you X number of endorsements valued at $X

[Tugg Speedman]

What's to prevent a booster from telling a recruit if he comes to University X, he'll guarantee $50K for a couple of endorsements? Doesn't the "free market" go out the window when a big time booster wants a big time recruit at their university?

Don't kid yourself, this happens now.  Bring it out in the open and everyone knows what is going on and the price of admission.

[GGGG]

I would use it as a recruiting tool.  Come to UW and I'll guarantee you X number of endorsements valued at $X

Right.  Like that's going to happen.

As other people have mentioned here, the number and value of endorsements that would be available is extremely exaggerated.

And even if it does, it wouldn't be the end of the world.

What's to prevent a booster from telling a recruit if he comes to University X, he'll guarantee $50K for a couple of endorsements? Doesn't the "free market" go out the window when a big time booster wants a big time recruit at their university?

Actually that is pretty much the definition of a free market.

[Tugg Speedman]

What's to prevent a booster from telling a recruit if he comes to University X, he'll guarantee $50K for a couple of endorsements? Doesn't the "free market" go out the window when a big time booster wants a big time recruit at their university?

Interesting that no one pushes back on this statement, that rich boosters will hand suitcases full of money to players, but I get push-back on the idea that they might actually earn money via endorsements and other "personal services" (i.e., meet and greets)

So let me say the amount of money they will be handed is much smaller than most believe and the opportunities to "make money" from their image is much larger than most think.

[Tugg Speedman]

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9669838/photo-shows-johnny-manziel-signing-autographs-south-florida-autograph-broker-drew-tieman

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Interesting that no one pushes back on this statement, that rich boosters will hand suitcases full of money to players, but I get push-back on the idea that they might actually earn money via endorsements and other "personal services" (i.e., meet and greets)

So let me say the amount of money they will be handed is much smaller than most believe and the opportunities to "make money" from their image is much larger than most think.

You're mixing 2 things together.

#1 You initially claimed that MU would be at an advantage because of it's media market and the players would be able to generate more revenue than a player in Madison.

I don't find this true at all, and I have a tough time finding local celebrities (who are about equal with MU players "fame") who make make money endorsing products. I guess there are some local radio guys like Bill Michaels?

#2 If you want to talk about ALL of college basketball, then yes, there are guys on certain teams who will make a lot of money. Also, a guy like T.Boone is likely to just pay the whole team so he can have the best players.

So, in conclusion, yes, certain players in college basketball will be able to cash in on their likeness, but MU isn't likely to be at an advantage because it's a metro area school. There isn't a huge demand for local celebrity endorsements.

Good?

[Tugg Speedman]

You're mixing 2 things together.

#1 You initially claimed that MU would be at an advantage because of it's media market and the players would be able to generate more revenue than a player in Madison.

I don't find this true at all, and I have a tough time finding local celebrities (who are about equal with MU players "fame") who make make money endorsing products. I guess there are some local radio guys like Bill Michaels?

#2 If you want to talk about ALL of college basketball, then yes, there are guys on certain teams who will make a lot of money. Also, a guy like T.Boone is likely to just pay the whole team so he can have the best players.

So, in conclusion, yes, certain players in college basketball will be able to cash in on their likeness, but MU isn't likely to be at an advantage because it's a metro area school. There isn't a huge demand for local celebrity endorsements.

Good?

Keep in mind we are talking about 1 to 3 players a year that would be in the position to make extra money.  The other 9 to 11 are getting compensated enough with a free education.

But those 1 to 3 players are the different between winning the nBE and an also ran.

[forgetful]

Keep in mind we are talking about 1 to 3 players a year that would be in the position to make extra money.  The other 9 to 11 are getting compensated enough with a free education.

But those 1 to 3 players are the different between winning the nBE and an also ran.

I agree that the numbers being able to make money from appearances would be small.  But if there is one thing we know about college sports is that some fans are completely irrational. Case in point the individual that paid $115,000 for the 12th man license plate this year. 

Those people will gladly hand over a lot of money to players to get them to come to their University.  And honestly, they don't care about the persons name or likeness, just that they help team X win.

We do this and we turn college sports into something similar to the gladiators of ancient rome.  People pampered and honored for a few years by the wealthy, with no concern for the well being or long term development.  At least right now making sure they do get a quality education is important.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Right.  Like that's going to happen.

As other people have mentioned here, the number and value of endorsements that would be available is extremely exaggerated.

And even if it does, it wouldn't be the end of the world.

How do you know what the impact would be?  You don't, you are just speculating like the rest of us.

[chapman]

At least the rest of the world got a Putin cover over Mr. Tweet Something Retarded Each Week.

[MerrittsMustache]

Do we really think that will work?  Today the cap on payments is $0, and it doesn't work.  The NCAA has no way to police this stuff, they don't have the resources to police it.  No different, in my opinion, to the jobs these kids are allowed to do today....how often do we already find out the kid never did the job, or was grossly overpaid for the job at hand.  Besides, it would be so easy to cook the books.   "Here Mr. Dekker is your $500 paycheck for the commercial spot limited as the max by the NCAA"  <and under the table is another $5G for all the gas money to get you down here to the studio...good job>

It just becomes another shell game that is tacitly endorsed but difficult to police. 

You really don't see a different between making an appearance somewhere or doing a radio ad and getting paid for a no-show job? There would be a contract so the player wouldn't get paid if he doesn't show up or doesn't film the spot. Pretty easy to prove if those things took place.

Of course, there will be cases when the contract saying $500 and there is money given under the table, but those would be few and far between. Put it this way, do you think any boosters have given Dekker (to use your example) cash under the table? If not, what makes you think they'd do it if he showed up at their sporting goods store for an hour in exchange for a couple hundred bucks?

[MerrittsMustache]

I would use it as a recruiting tool.  Come to UW and I'll guarantee you X number of endorsements valued at $X

That's no different than promising playing time to recruits. It sounds good, but it doesn't really mean anything.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Last week's cover was about Obama and Syria.

I really was trying to figure out why this was so damn important.....apparently the rest of the world got the important stuff, but here in the dumbed down nation we got this.

[ChicosBailBonds]

That's no different than promising playing time to recruits. It sounds good, but it doesn't really mean anything.

Good news is that this fantasy idea of endorsements isn't going to happen any time soon, nor should it. 

[Tugg Speedman]

Good news is that this fantasy idea of endorsements isn't going to happen any time soon, nor should it. 

Endorsements is nothing but the NCAA lifting the outside job restrictions on scholarship athletes, no matter what the job might be.  What's wrong with that?

And again, if the endorsement idea is a bust, then no harm in allowing it.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Endorsements is nothing but the NCAA lifting the outside job restrictions on scholarship athletes, no matter what the job might be.  What's wrong with that?

And again, if the endorsement idea is a bust, then no harm in allowing it.

The harm is this:

Select schools and select alumni with DEEP pockets, will simply purchase the top talent.

T. Boone could afford to sign every player to a 6 figure "appearance contract", and thus, OSU would get the best players. Same for a lot of top schools with rich and/or crazy alumni.

Instead of donating $ to the school, their "donation" will be paying players for an appearance at their son's birthday party.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Keep in mind we are talking about 1 to 3 players a year that would be in the position to make extra money.  The other 9 to 11 are getting compensated enough with a free education.

But those 1 to 3 players are the different between winning the nBE and an also ran.

That's fine, but MU still wouldn't be at an advantage as you claimed.

What you propose would likely end college basketball and football (as we know them).

[MerrittsMustache]

I really was trying to figure out why this was so damn important.....apparently the rest of the world got the important stuff, but here in the dumbed down nation we got this.

With over 15,000 posts on this board, you sure seem to spend a lot of time discussing unimportant topics.

[MerrittsMustache]

The harm is this:

Select schools and select alumni with DEEP pockets, will simply purchase the top talent.

T. Boone could afford to sign every player to a 6 figure "appearance contract", and thus, OSU would get the best players. Same for a lot of top schools with rich and/or crazy alumni.

Instead of donating $ to the school, their "donation" will be paying players for an appearance at their son's birthday party.

Not if you cap their earnings and require that endorsement contracts go through the university's compliance dept.

Select schools and select alumni with DEEP pockets, simply purchase some of the top talent anyway.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Not if you cap their earnings and require that endorsement contracts go through the university's compliance dept.

Select schools and select alumni with DEEP pockets, simply purchase some of the top talent anyway.

You're right... it's really the same problem, which is why I say it won't work.

The NCAA can come up with any system it wants, but unless it can enforce it, we aren't really solving anything.

[CTWarrior]

The other thing that they could do is allow athletes to profit off of their own name.  That would fall outside of the NCAA rules and Title IX, and then them earn what the free market bears.  So if Manziel wants to earn $50,000 in a summer for autographs, that's just fine.  If a local car dealer wants Chris Otule to be its spokesman, that's fine too.

Again, be careful what you wish for.  As soon as you allow that, the biggest schools will find donors to offer everybody who signs with the school significant money for their autographs, etc.  You will end up with a much smaller pool of schools who are willing to go there and the end result will be a lot less scholarships for true student-athletes.

I would like to point out one other thing.  Even though these are sports, the athletes are much less integral to the product than many of us are aware.  If you decreed that all of the current D-I football players were ineligible and you replaced them with the next best 5,000 or whatever players, college football would still be immensely popular, Auburn would still want to beat Alabama, there would still be tailgate parties, etc.It would be popular as long as the games were competitive.

[MerrittsMustache]

You're right... it's really the same problem, which is why I say it won't work.

The NCAA can come up with any system it wants, but unless it can enforce it, we aren't really solving anything.

What system should they come up with? Or do you think the current broken system is good enough?

[GGGG]

Again, be careful what you wish for.  As soon as you allow that, the biggest schools will find donors to offer everybody who signs with the school significant money for their autographs, etc.  You will end up with a much smaller pool of schools who are willing to go there and the end result will be a lot less scholarships for true student-athletes.

I'm fully aware of the potential consequences but believe them to be exaggerated.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

What system should they come up with? Or do you think the current broken system is good enough?

Honestly, I don't have a good answer/solution to the current problems.

However, I don't think that players receiving payment from 3rd parties, and having the NCAA regulate it is a good idea. I think that would be significantly worse.

For the most part, players now receive a free education and some small perks for playing a D1 sport. Is it "fair"? I dunno, I guess not.

[MerrittsMustache]

Honestly, I don't have a good answer/solution to the current problems.

However, I don't think that players receiving payment from 3rd parties, and having the NCAA regulate it is a good idea. I think that would be significantly worse.

For the most part, players now receive a free education and some small perks for playing a D1 sport. Is it "fair"? I dunno, I guess not.

Fair enough. But in what way would it make it significantly worse?

I don't think universities should be paying their athletes a salary but I do think that students in the public eye should be able to capitalize off of that, if the options are there. Like others have pointed out, the endorsement deals aren't going to come flying in for most athletes but if Chris Otule can get 50 bucks for wearing a Ciganiak Planning hat to a press conference, why stop him?

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Fair enough. But in what way would it make it significantly worse?

I don't think universities should be paying their athletes a salary but I do think that students in the public eye should be able to capitalize off of that, if the options are there. Like others have pointed out, the endorsement deals aren't going to come flying in for most athletes but if Chris Otule can get 50 bucks for wearing a Ciganiak Planning hat to a press conference, why stop him?

In theory, I agree with you.

However, I'm fearful of the eventual (and in my mind inevitable) arms race that would occur.

#1 You'll have rich alumni from around the country offering sponsorship dollars to players (in an effort to field the best team possible).
#2 The NCAA will attempt to cap the earnings a player can make.
#3 Certain boosters will attempt to side-step the NCAA.

Well, then we will be right back where we started, but with a lot more cash already moving around. Just seems worse.

Also, I think the best kept secret in college basketball is per diem. The idea that they never have any cash (which is what some people think) is silly.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Not changing

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/9682086/ncaa-budge-paying-college-athletes

[Tugg Speedman]

The harm is this:

Select schools and select alumni with DEEP pockets, will simply purchase the top talent.

T. Boone could afford to sign every player to a 6 figure "appearance contract", and thus, OSU would get the best players. Same for a lot of top schools with rich and/or crazy alumni.

Instead of donating $ to the school, their "donation" will be paying players for an appearance at their son's birthday party.

The schools with all the money and really rich alumni are the Ivy League.  Forget Pickens, Harvard has 30 Pickens types.

So if the restrictions are lifted college athletics returns to circa 1890s when everything was dominated by the Ivies. 

You agree with this but this is what will happen based on what you say.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

The schools with all the money and really rich alumni are the Ivy League.  Forget Pickens, Harvard has 30 Pickens types.

So if the restrictions are lifted college athletics returns to circa 1890s when everything was dominated by the Ivies. 

You agree with this but this is what will happen based on what you say.

Maybe the ivies would dominate... but I don't know if they have the right mix of crazy alumni who would be willing to buy a championship. I think some SEC and Big 12 schools probably do.

[ChicosBailBonds]

With over 15,000 posts on this board, you sure seem to spend a lot of time discussing unimportant topics.

One you felt important enough to comment on.

[Benny B]

Not changing

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/9682086/ncaa-budge-paying-college-athletes

Look at that... ESPN actually calling Marquette by name.