Crowder & Hayward to HOF

[TheyWereCones]

"People" can do that overseas or anywhere else outside of college basketball.  You added "college athlete."  This is such a big government approach.  If you don't like something, force organizations to change instead of let the market speak for itself or have other entrepreneurial enterprises compete.  If there's is such a market, go ahead, let's see the g-league or whatever else become the Netflix to the NCAA as Blockbuster.

To be honest, my biggest complaint with this whole conversation is the often extreme omission or exaggerated downplaying of the compensation that IS received.  The compensation they get is both consensual and overall hugely beneficial for a plethora of reasons.  If there was a way to make profiting off of likeness easy without destroying the sport and having shoe companies owning college basketball, I don't think I'd care all that much.  But I don't see that as reality.  I think it would totally mess up the game.  I would rather see a stricter enforcement of the current rules.  Obviously this is a touchy, controversial subject and many of us will likely need to agree to disagree.  But at a minimum I really hope people can agree that they get very good compensation as it is today and that ultimately they don't HAVE to play college sports.

For the record, I would rather the rules change in the NBA so people can choose to go straight there and skip college altogether if they want.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

"People" can do that overseas or anywhere else outside of college basketball.  You added "college athlete."  This is such a big government approach.  If you don't like something, force organizations to change instead of let the market speak for itself or have other entrepreneurial enterprises compete.  If there's is such a market, go ahead, let's see the g-league or whatever else become the Netflix to the NCAA as Blockbuster.

To be honest, my biggest complaint with this whole conversation is the often extreme omission or exaggerated downplaying of the compensation that IS received.  The compensation they get is both consensual and overall hugely beneficial for a plethora of reasons.  If there was a way to make profiting off of likeness easy without destroying the sport and having shoe companies owning college basketball, I don't think I'd care all that much.  But I don't see that as reality.  I think it would totally mess up the game.  I would rather see a stricter enforcement of the current rules.  Obviously this is a touchy, controversial subject and many of us will likely need to agree to disagree.  But at a minimum I really hope people can agree that they get very good compensation as it is today and that ultimately they don't HAVE to play college sports.

LOL.

Only on Scoop would the idea of breaking up a system where the cost of labor is fixed and allowing people to receive additional compensation be considered “big government” and non-entrepreneurial.

[brewcity77]

If there's is such a market, go ahead, let's see the g-league or whatever else become the Netflix to the NCAA as Blockbuster.

This, of course, is the other elephant in the room. Generally, the 1980s into the 1990s is remembered as a heyday of college basketball. Why? Because all the best talent was there and generally stayed four years. Schools and players were identified together.

Then we went to the direct to NBA era. The best players never came, the talent level decreased, and the sport suffered. One-and-done has helped, but as more opportunities have opened up, from the G League to overseas, we are seeing some of the best skip college or go pro even when they won't be drafted.

We're in the beginning of this phase, but allowing players to go direct to the NBA again, while the right thing to do, will decrease the talent level and the quality of the game. Undrafted players are leaving to get money because the NCAA gives them no alternative. How much better would the Big East be with Shamorie Ponds & Martin Krampelj back? How much better would the national landscape be with Jared Harper & Dedric Lawson? Or RJ Hampton and Makur Maker?

If the NCAA doesn't find some way to compensate players beyond tuition and cost of attendance, the talent level will decline, and the interest along with it. The value of the sport, the tournament, all that will be lessened if they are unable to attract and retain players. The loss of players to other options is in its infancy. It will get worse if they don't stem that tide.

Likeness rights could change that, or at least help it. The lack of tangible compensation is having an effect. It may be relatively small now, but it's growing.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Here are a few ideas why permitting student athletes to sell their likeness might be a bad idea:

1. You wind up giving schools built-in advantages based on area population or national following to include pitches like "The typical Tar Heel student-athlete generates $1.2 million in personal appearance fees, compared to $800 at Duke, $500K at Clemson, or $250K at South Carolina.  Why would you go to any of those schools?"  Or, "The metro population of Chicago is more than 7 million, versus 1.5 million in Milwaukee.  Think of the expanded personal likeness income opportunity you'll have at DePaul."

2. You wind up legalizing de-facto booster payments to attend the favored school.  Do you really want Phil Knight to buy an all-star team for Oregon via buying the likeness of certain players for Nike?   

3. The ego issues that will arise will make our off-season issues with the Hausers look like nothing.  You think the player egos and complaints about usage are bad now?  Wait until there's a player revenue stream at risk. You'll get players suing their coach for loss of income if their reputation suffers and their likeness is devalued due to lack of playing time, discipline, etc.

The only way I could see this working is if all the revenue is pooled, and every player gets an equal cut, regardless of school.

Thank you. This is what I've been getting at it for the last few pages. These are actual reasons against athletes profiting off their likeness instead of repeated logical fallacies.

1 and 2 I see happening but personally don't see them as problems. The game would adjust and schools would figure out how to navigate it.

3 I don't see happening often. Sure there'd be a few hotheads but I think they would be few and far between.

The sharing revenue equally idea is an interesting one that I haven't heard before. On one hand, it allows players to profit off their likeness which takes care of the ethical problem I have with the restriction. It doesn't take care of the top athletes not making what they are worth problem, but I see the former as more important than the latter.

[MU82]

"People" can do that overseas or anywhere else outside of college basketball.  You added "college athlete."  This is such a big government approach.  If you don't like something, force organizations to change instead of let the market speak for itself or have other entrepreneurial enterprises compete.  If there's is such a market, go ahead, let's see the g-league or whatever else become the Netflix to the NCAA as Blockbuster.

To be honest, my biggest complaint with this whole conversation is the often extreme omission or exaggerated downplaying of the compensation that IS received.  The compensation they get is both consensual and overall hugely beneficial for a plethora of reasons.  If there was a way to make profiting off of likeness easy without destroying the sport and having shoe companies owning college basketball, I don't think I'd care all that much.  But I don't see that as reality.  I think it would totally mess up the game.  I would rather see a stricter enforcement of the current rules.  Obviously this is a touchy, controversial subject and many of us will likely need to agree to disagree.  But at a minimum I really hope people can agree that they get very good compensation as it is today and that ultimately they don't HAVE to play college sports.

I do not agree with your big-government analogy. I would argue that you have it backward -- big government is imposing its will on the individual. But that's neither here nor there.

The editor of the Marquette Tribune gets a full ride. It would also be 100% OK if she or he profited from her or his likeness, if the opportunity presented itself. She or he wouldn't told: "If you want to own your likeness and profit off it, tough, go to the Wisconsin State Journal.

IMHO, a Marquette basketball guard, soccer goalkeeper or long jumper should have the same opportunities. For me, it's that simple. I really don't understand why others seem so adamant about not letting a fellow human being have even an iota of control over his or her own likeness.

You apparently disagree, so we'll respectfully agree to disagree.

[Cheeks]

This, of course, is the other elephant in the room. Generally, the 1980s into the 1990s is remembered as a heyday of college basketball. Why? Because all the best talent was there and generally stayed four years. Schools and players were identified together.

Then we went to the direct to NBA era. The best players never came, the talent level decreased, and the sport suffered. One-and-done has helped, but as more opportunities have opened up, from the G League to overseas, we are seeing some of the best skip college or go pro even when they won't be drafted.

We're in the beginning of this phase, but allowing players to go direct to the NBA again, while the right thing to do, will decrease the talent level and the quality of the game. Undrafted players are leaving to get money because the NCAA gives them no alternative. How much better would the Big East be with Shamorie Ponds & Martin Krampelj back? How much better would the national landscape be with Jared Harper & Dedric Lawson? Or RJ Hampton and Makur Maker?

If the NCAA doesn't find some way to compensate players beyond tuition and cost of attendance, the talent level will decline, and the interest along with it. The value of the sport, the tournament, all that will be lessened if they are unable to attract and retain players. The loss of players to other options is in its infancy. It will get worse if they don't stem that tide.

Likeness rights could change that, or at least help it. The lack of tangible compensation is having an effect. It may be relatively small now, but it's growing.

Fine by me.  Go to the baseball system.  Either you go pro or you stay three years.  College basketball will be fine.  Most of these guys don’t play in the NBA so I don’t see it as the sport suffering in that respect.  Where it suffers is a guy coming for one year, really only going to school for one semester.  If you go to the baseball rule kids are truly committed to playing and attending college.  If that means a bunch go to the G league, so be it.

[Cheeks]

I do not agree with your big-government analogy. I would argue that you have it backward -- big government is imposing its will on the individual. But that's neither here nor there.

The editor of the Marquette Tribune gets a full ride. It would also be 100% OK if she or he profited from her or his likeness, if the opportunity presented itself. She or he wouldn't told: "If you want to own your likeness and profit off it, tough, go to the Wisconsin State Journal.

IMHO, a Marquette basketball guard, soccer goalkeeper or long jumper should have the same opportunities. For me, it's that simple. I really don't understand why others seem so adamant about not letting a fellow human being have even an iota of control over his or her own likeness.

You apparently disagree, so we'll respectfully agree to disagree.

Why doesn’t the entire MU Tribune staff have the same benefits of the editor?

Is there a large pursuit of recruiting efforts put out to junior and senior high school yearbook writers to come to their school to be editor of the paper?  The editor of the Tribune tends to be editor for only a year, correct?

IMHO, that isn’t a very good analogy to try and make your argument. I’d also add that the Tribune editor cannot control his or her likeness as you state.  There are absolutely things the editor could do with their likeness that would means grounds for removal of their position, potentially their scholarship and removal from the school.

[lawdog77]

How about:
first year  (or redshirt) in a program=$3 K a month
Second year- $5K
Third Year $7500
Fourth year-10K

If you transfer you are back to $3K

That is their base. They are then compensated on a % of jersey sales (with their name on the back), video games, tourney shares, etc...The school controls their likeness to keep their brand image.

Smarter people than me can figure out the details.

[brewcity77]

How about:
first year  (or redshirt) in a program=$3 K a month
Second year- $5K
Third Year $7500
Fourth year-10K

If you transfer you are back to $3K

That is their base. They are then compensated on a % of jersey sales (with their name on the back), video games, tourney shares, etc...The school controls their likeness to keep their brand image.

Smarter people than me can figure out the details.

There's a number of things they could do. The schools could request a portion of any income be donated to an athletic scholarship fund. Maybe have all or a percentage of revenue shared among members of that sport or have a revenue sharing model that spreads across all the sports, throughout the conference, or throughout the NCAA. Like you said, they can figure out the details, but there are ways to improve upon the system as it exists without leading to some Chicken Little "oh my god all college athletics are gonna DIE" scenario like some are painting.

[Pakuni]

Really...you don’t think Liberty or BYU might have a problem with an athlete pushing Trojans or porn sites?  You are kidding, right.

The only "kidding" here is by someone who actually believes porn sites and condom manufacturers have a shred of interest in paying no-name athletes from Liberty and BYU as their celebrity endorsers. Or that any athlete worth an endorsement deal is going to risk his reputation score by endorsing porn.
This is a very dumb argument you're pushing here.

As for gambling, seen any European sports lately? Welcome to the present.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/jul/19/half-of-premier-league-clubs-to-have-gambling-sponsors-for-201920

Your second argument...that is a red herring.  The NCAA is trying to prevent the extreme Wild West, if you go with your logic why have any rules at all...I mean what’s the point?  Fortunately the powers that be have said there will be some rules and people can whine all they wish about them, but they will exist to at least attempt some form of balance perceived or otherwise

You clearly are missing the point.
Do away with any and all improper benefits. Assume everyone is following the NCAA's rules to a 'T'.' There is still no such thing as competitive balance in recruiting.
Does anyone believe that there's a recruiting balance between Alabama football and UAB football? Or Kentucky basketball and Morehead State basketball? Or, heck, Marquette basketball and UW-Milwaukee basketball?
The NCAA already allows a huge competetive imbalance in recruiting, and a big part of that is the money that flows into programs from sponsors and boosters. Allowing players to profit off their likeness does nothing to change this.
The truth is the NCAA doesn't give a rip about the competitive imbalances created by companies and boosters pouring money into programs. In fact, they love it.
Their only fear is what happens when some of that money goes directly to the players instead lining their pockets and filling athletic department coffers.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Why doesn’t the entire MU Tribune staff have the same benefits of the editor?

Because the editor earned extra benefits.

Is there a large pursuit of recruiting efforts put out to junior and senior high school yearbook writers to come to their school to be editor of the paper?  The editor of the Tribune tends to be editor for only a year, correct?

This has nothing to do with athletes profiting off their likeness.

There are absolutely things the editor could do with their likeness that would means grounds for removal of their position, potentially their scholarship and removal from the school.

That's true. It would also be true for student athletes if they were allowed the same ability to profit off their likeness.

[Billy Hoyle]

How about:
first year  (or redshirt) in a program=$3 K a month
Second year- $5K
Third Year $7500
Fourth year-10K

If you transfer you are back to $3K

That is their base. They are then compensated on a % of jersey sales (with their name on the back), video games, tourney shares, etc...The school controls their likeness to keep their brand image.

Smarter people than me can figure out the details.

you screw mid and low majors by doing that and basically break up the NCAA. What Horizon League or Valley schools could afford to do that?

[MU82]

Because the editor earned extra benefits.

This has nothing to do with athletes profiting off their likeness.

That's true. It would also be true for student athletes if they were allowed the same ability to profit off their likeness.

Thanks, TAMU.

[lawdog77]

you screw mid and low majors by doing that and basically break up the NCAA. What Horizon League or Valley schools could afford to do that?

it comes out to about a million a year. If a school cannot afford that, they should drop to D2. Horizon league teams can afford that

[Marcus92]

As an example of a Horizon league school, UW-Green Bay presents an annual athletics report to the UW Board of Regents. According to last spring's report, UWGB posted net operating margins of $408,800 in FY 2016-17 (on $9.4 million in revenue) and $260,876 in FY 2015-16.

That $9.4 million in revenue includes $1.8 million in tuition remissions provided by the university and used for athletic scholarships. In other words, it's money coming from Wisconsin taxpayers and UWGB student tuition -- not ticket sales, sponsorships, NCAA distributions, etc.

The vast majority of athletic department expenses (almost 70%) go toward additional financial aid for student athletes, team travel, equipment and other costs. Salaries and benefits for coaches and administrators take up the rest.

I'm no financial expert, so feel free to correct me if I'm reading any of this wrong. But there are a lot more universities like UWGB in D1 than there are schools like Marquette. And they don't have millions of dollars just sitting around.

https://www.wisconsin.edu/regents/download/meeting_materials/2018/april_5-6,_2018/Friday-Board-Agenda-and-Materials-(April-6,-2018).pdf

[Marcus92]

For comparison, Marquette men's basketball generated $19.3 million in revenue in 2016-17 against $11.8 million in costs. But that margin of $7.5 million goes to support other athletic programs -- and MU athletics still draws funds from the university itself.

AD Mike Broeker states "there's only 24 of 356 programs that are self-funded," meaning that the athletics department supports itself entirely on things like fundraising, ticket sales, merchandising, broadcast rights deals, NCAA distributions, etc.

Even a very successful program like Marquette doesn't have millions of dollars just lying around. Athletics is an investment in sustaining the university.

https://marquettewire.org/3992372/tv/increased-mens-basketball-spending-a-product-of-travel-lease-agreements/

[brewcity77]

All of which is why you allow likeness rights rather than set salaries. Market dictates value, market pays the costs.

[Marcus92]

My posts above have nothing to do with allowing student-athletes to profit from their own likeness. Frankly, I'm undecided on that issue. I like it in principle. But I think it also has the potential to impact scholarships for non-revenue sports and create other unintended consequences.

Another point of comparison:

Based on Marquette's 2016-17 tuition of $38,470, the cost of providing scholarships for 80+ student-athletes in the other varsity sports outside of men's basketball is more than $3 million. According to the university's latest financial report, leasing "athletic and other facilities and equipment" will account for $1.3 million in 2019. And those figures don't include student housing, salaries for other coaches and administrators, team travel, etc.

If Markus were free to sign his own endorsement deals with Cyganiak Planning and Richard Gruber, that could mean lost revenue for the MU athletic department -- and less money to support women's basketball, men's golf, women's volleyball, men's and women's lacrosse and soccer, etc.

[Cheeks]

The only "kidding" here is by someone who actually believes porn sites and condom manufacturers have a shred of interest in paying no-name athletes from Liberty and BYU as their celebrity endorsers. Or that any athlete worth an endorsement deal is going to risk his reputation score by endorsing porn.
This is a very dumb argument you're pushing here.

As for gambling, seen any European sports lately? Welcome to the present.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/jul/19/half-of-premier-league-clubs-to-have-gambling-sponsors-for-201920

You clearly are missing the point.
Do away with any and all improper benefits. Assume everyone is following the NCAA's rules to a 'T'.' There is still no such thing as competitive balance in recruiting.
Does anyone believe that there's a recruiting balance between Alabama football and UAB football? Or Kentucky basketball and Morehead State basketball? Or, heck, Marquette basketball and UW-Milwaukee basketball?
The NCAA already allows a huge competetive imbalance in recruiting, and a big part of that is the money that flows into programs from sponsors and boosters. Allowing players to profit off their likeness does nothing to change this.
The truth is the NCAA doesn't give a rip about the competitive imbalances created by companies and boosters pouring money into programs. In fact, they love it.
Their only fear is what happens when some of that money goes directly to the players instead lining their pockets and filling athletic department coffers.

I think you don’t know what the NCAA cares about or doesn’t, especially when the NCAA isn’t a single entity.

Yes, very familiar with European sports and betting, I do a ton of work with SportRadar who is the firm of record to validate all bets in Europe...but as you satiate that is Europe, not the USA.

I think you vastly understate why brands and companies try and protect those brands, and having a single entity that could destroy or hurt that brand is why companies, etc don’t allow employees or firemen or others do things in their name with that brand attached to it.

I already acknowledged there is a recruiting imbalance, what you are suggesting is make it worse....much worse.

[Cheeks]

Because the editor earned extra benefits.

This has nothing to do with athletes profiting off their likeness.

That's true. It would also be true for student athletes if they were allowed the same ability to profit off their likeness.

So you are admitting that some people get things others don’t...correct?  Life isn’t fair.  The editor gets something the other staff members do not.  Basketball players get a lot of things other students don’t, and some students get a few things basketball players don’t.

[Cheeks]

All of which is why you allow likeness rights rather than set salaries. Market dictates value, market pays the costs.

And the market will be driven by large schools, with deep pockets that will further the imbalance even more.  So in this new world Brew, what team are you going to follow since Marquette and schools like it will slowly disappear from the landscape...purely a numbers game.

[jesmu84]

I think you don’t know what the NCAA cares about or doesn’t, especially when the NCAA isn’t a single entity.

Yes, very familiar with European sports and betting, I do a ton of work with SportRadar who is the firm of record to validate all bets in Europe...but as you satiate that is Europe, not the USA.

I think you vastly understate why brands and companies try and protect those brands, and having a single entity that could destroy or hurt that brand is why companies, etc don’t allow employees or firemen or others do things in their name with that brand attached to it.

I already acknowledged there is a recruiting imbalance, what you are suggesting is make it worse....much worse.

I was envisioning a situation where a football player had a comedy YouTube channel or a swimmer had a personal Instagram account. Nothing to do with their sport, jersey, school, etc.

Much like Brew mentioned his co-workers can do what they want on their own time in making money off their likeness. But would be restricted when it comes to doing anything in uniform/representing his firehouse.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

So you are admitting that some people get things others don’t...correct?  Life isn’t fair.  The editor gets something the other staff members do not.  Basketball players get a lot of things other students don’t, and some students get a few things basketball players don’t.

No. I'm saying the editor earned extra compensation. The basketball players earned extra compensation. Restricting athletes from profiting off their likeness is not an example of earning extra compensation. You are making an apples to echidnas comparison.

Also, for the fifth time, "Life isn't fair" isn't an argument for or against players profiting off their likeness. It's a logical fallacy.

[Marcus92]

I already acknowledged there is a recruiting imbalance, what you are suggesting is make it worse....much worse.

This is my biggest concern. Greater opportunity for the few could mean less opportunity for everyone else -- whether it's big schools versus small schools or revenue-generating sports versus all other varsity sports.

Yes, the NCAA generates a ton of money -- about $1.1 billion a year. That's a gigantic number. But it doesn't account for expenses. The NCAA is a big organization, and part of that revenue goes toward legislation, cabinets and committees, research, marketing, legal fees, etc. The majority, however (about $560 million) is distributed back to Division I schools to support other athletic programs.

Still a really big number. But that averages out to roughly $1.5 million per Division I school, supporting nearly a half million student athletes.

If the NCAA's financial model shifts toward favoring the stars of college football and men's college basketball, what will that mean for everyone else?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2018/03/07/ncaa-reports-revenues-more-than-1-billion-2017/402486002/

[Cheeks]

I was envisioning a situation where a football player had a comedy YouTube channel or a swimmer had a personal Instagram account. Nothing to do with their sport, jersey, school, etc.

Much like Brew mentioned his co-workers can do what they want on their own time in making money off their likeness. But would be restricted when it comes to doing anything in uniform/representing his firehouse.

That’s because no one knows who the firemen are or the Joe blow student.  That is quite different when it comes to college athletes...just because they aren’t in uniform doesn’t mean they won’t be associated with that brand.  This is the case with many public figures which is another reason the rules are different.