NCAA Future?

[burger]

Professors are making bank......6 digits part time.....

The new scam (not Marquette) that I see is that they publish a book and use it in their class......If it is an important book (computer science etc)......There are no "used" ones available.....I got a class where the list price for one of my son's books was $700......No $hit.....Just jack the price thru the roof.....Let's say $500 per copy to the prof for 200 or 300 kids.....Not a bad gig.....

Put that into your financial calculator.....I figure it to be over $250K.....

[WhiteTrash]

I'm old fashioned and I am vehemently opposed to paying players. But, if the players are going to get paid, then eliminate athletic scholarships, and let players get financial aid based on need like most everyone else. Then maybe they and their families would learn the value of what they already get.

Also, there's no reason to prohibit players from going pro right out of high school like they do in baseball and hockey. Let the NFL and NBA establish minor leagues to develop players and keep athletes who have no interest in a college education out of school.

I agree with the spirit of your idea in your first paragraph, but if they do start paying players (which I know you are against) there are so many issues that have to be resolved. How much? All student athletes? If not, who? and others I mentioned in my original post.

[WhiteTrash]

Give the players a small stipend to make sure there are no starving athletes. Allow them to profit off their likeness but put the money in a fund that players don't have access to until after they graduate (this is how Olympians who are also NCAA athletes get their prize money if they medal). If they leave early they can access the account but the second they do they are ineligible for NCAA play. Put some sort of cap on how much they can earn off their likeness before they become ineligible.

I am sure there are issues with this idea but it seems like a fair system to me. Would it prevent all abuses? Absolutely not. Would it decrease them? I think so. Less motivation to risk being caught cheating when there's a legitimate way to earn some income.

Personally, I think players are compensated fairly. A college education, room/board, elite level coaching, tutoring, exposure and all the other benefits they receive is more than fair compensation for most individual NCAA athletes. But the inability to profit off their likeness seems wrong to me. If you need to put limits to keep competitive balance, fine. This would also allow the star players to "earn more" considering they are worth more to the school than the guy on the end of the bench.

I think what you propose has a lot of merit but (there's always a but) I think you fall into the trap the of 'being an honest person syndrome' as most people do. Your proposal presumes everyone will act in a honest way. But, for decades in the south and Big 12 country boosters and the schools they support have spent much effort to figure out what is allowed and not allowed and, maybe most importantly, not even addressed in NCAA rules so they can most effectively support their teams. Maybe to make my point quickly, if the NCAA passed your suggestion, every player on every SEC football and basketball team including walkons would "profiting from their likenesses", not just the 'star' players. And if the SEC does it, so will every P5 school and it would be allowed based upon what you proposed. And it would stink. It's a shame it has to be legislated with this in mind, but this is why the NCAA rule book is so long and complicated. If you give these people an inch they will take a mile. 

[GGGG]

Professors are making bank......6 digits part time.....

The new scam (not Marquette) that I see is that they publish a book and use it in their class......If it is an important book (computer science etc)......There are no "used" ones available.....I got a class where the list price for one of my son's books was $700......No $hit.....Just jack the price thru the roof.....Let's say $500 per copy to the prof for 200 or 300 kids.....Not a bad gig.....

Put that into your financial calculator.....I figure it to be over $250K.....

The only professors making six figures are those in high demand fields (finance, engineering) where you have to compete with industry, or those who bring in way more than that in grant and contract work.  English, history, philosophy?  Very doubtful.

And no professor is getting 500 a copy for a book they write.  Not even close.

[GGGG]

I think what you propose has a lot of merit but (there's always a but) I think you fall into the trap the of 'being an honest person syndrome' as most people do. Your proposal presumes everyone will act in a honest way. But, for decades in the south and Big 12 country boosters and the schools they support have spent much effort to figure out what is allowed and not allowed and, maybe most importantly, not even addressed in NCAA rules so they can most effectively support their teams. Maybe to make my point quickly, if the NCAA passed your suggestion, every player on every SEC football and basketball team including walkons would "profiting from their likenesses", not just the 'star' players. And if the SEC does it, so will every P5 school and it would be allowed based upon what you proposed. And it would stink. It's a shame it has to be legislated with this in mind, but this is why the NCAA rule book is so long and complicated. If you give these people an inch they will take a mile. 

I think you are vastly overestimating how much boosters would be willing to pay for marginal talent. 

[GGGG]

Give the players a small stipend to make sure there are no starving athletes. Allow them to profit off their likeness but put the money in a fund that players don't have access to until after they graduate (this is how Olympians who are also NCAA athletes get their prize money if they medal). If they leave early they can access the account but the second they do they are ineligible for NCAA play. Put some sort of cap on how much they can earn off their likeness before they become ineligible.

I am sure there are issues with this idea but it seems like a fair system to me. Would it prevent all abuses? Absolutely not. Would it decrease them? I think so. Less motivation to risk being caught cheating when there's a legitimate way to earn some income.

I think this is a good system.  Allow them to access the funds in case of a financial emergency too.

[GGGG]

I'm old fashioned and I am vehemently opposed to paying players. But, if the players are going to get paid, then eliminate athletic scholarships, and let players get financial aid based on need like most everyone else. Then maybe they and their families would learn the value of what they already get.

This is just ridiculously condescending. 

[WhiteTrash]

I think you are vastly overestimating how much boosters would be willing to pay for marginal talent.

I could be. I see 100,000 people showing up for an Alabama spring game and it makes me think those people are a bit too crazy for college sports.

[StillAWarrior]

I think there are definitely problems that need to be fixed.  I tend to lean toward the "let them earn endorsement money" side of things.  This would put the money in the pockets of the kids who really can differentiate themselves which is, I think, a relatively small group (as compared to scholarship athletes as a whole).  For the vast majority of NCAA athletes (I'm thinking mid to high 90%) the scholarship is worth far more than anybody would ever be willing to pay them.  I would hate to see sweeping changes that could negatively affect that large group of athletes in an attempt to address a problem that exists with a small minority of athletes at a small minority of schools.

I'm also surprised by the naivety in some discussions of standardized payments to athletes and the thought that such payments would solve the problem.  The first post mentions a suggestion that each player be paid $50,000.  I just don't see how that would solve the problem.  That would simply set a new floor.  Currently, the floor is a full scholarship.  Top athletes have learned that they can get more.  Nothing would change if everyone was paid $50,000.  Top athletes would just learn that they could get more.  I think it's hopelessly naive to think that this would solve the problem.  Granted, it might solve a different problem for those who think that the athletes are being exploited.

And that's at the heart of why I think the better solutions involve letting the athletes profit.  The argument that all these athletes are being exploited just doesn't hold up for me.  The overwhelming majority of NCAA scholarship athletes are making out like bandits, receiving compensation that is far, far in excess of anything they are generating for the schools.  I think the only way to hopefully effectively address the situation is to figure out a way for the athletes who really do have incremental value get compensated for that.  It seems to me, that endorsements is the best avenue.  Some regulation would be needed, but that can be worked out.

[GrimmReaper33]

I think there are definitely problems that need to be fixed.  I tend to lean toward the "let them earn endorsement money" side of things.  This would put the money in the pockets of the kids who really can differentiate themselves which is, I think, a relatively small group (as compared to scholarship athletes as a whole).  For the vast majority of NCAA athletes (I'm thinking mid to high 90%) the scholarship is worth far more than anybody would ever be willing to pay them.  I would hate to see sweeping changes that could negatively affect that large group of athletes in an attempt to address a problem that exists with a small minority of athletes at a small minority of schools.

I'm also surprised by the naivety in some discussions of standardized payments to athletes and the thought that such payments would solve the problem.  The first post mentions a suggestion that each player be paid $50,000.  I just don't see how that would solve the problem.  That would simply set a new floor.  Currently, the floor is a full scholarship.  Top athletes have learned that they can get more.  Nothing would change if everyone was paid $50,000.  Top athletes would just learn that they could get more.  I think it's hopelessly naive to think that this would solve the problem.  Granted, it might solve a different problem for those who think that the athletes are being exploited.

And that's at the heart of why I think the better solutions involve letting the athletes profit.  The argument that all these athletes are being exploited just doesn't hold up for me.  The overwhelming majority of NCAA scholarship athletes are making out like bandits, receiving compensation that is far, far in excess of anything they are generating for the schools.  I think the only way to hopefully effectively address the situation is to figure out a way for the athletes who really do have incremental value get compensated for that.  It seems to me, that endorsements is the best avenue.  Some regulation would be needed, but that can be worked out.

+1 on the bolded.  Markus Howard and Sam Hauser, are they being short changed?  Maybe, I can see that.  They could make money off selling their own jerseys, people tune in to specifically watch them play, etc.  Matt Heldt? Harry Froling?  Not so much.  No offense to the kids but they are getting a great deal right now with the free tuition, room and board, meals, etc. 

The other thing I've thought of and haven't heard anyone really mention when this is discussed is performance bonuses for the players.  The Jay Bilas's of the world always whine about players not getting payed when they discuss the money involved with the Final Four or the football National Championship.  Do you start giving bonuses to teams that make the NCAA tourney, Final Four, National Title, etc?  The players on those teams are really the only ones being short changed, right?  The guys playing in the Horizon League aren't being short changed by the NCAA because the Final Four makes millions of dollars for the NCAA.

[Jockey]

Does a tenured Philosophy professor make 50K?

What does that have to do with anything? I am so tired of that old, ridiculous argument.

If 80,000 people wanted to watch him teach, he would have a mega-million dollar contract.

[brewcity77]

Matt Heldt? Harry Froling?  Not so much.  No offense to the kids but they are getting a great deal right now with the free tuition, room and board, meals, etc.

I disagree. It won't be the same deals the stars get, but I could see a local dairy ponying up for Matt Heldt. I could see local bars paying a little to even get walk-ons in ads. Obviously there will be a disparity, but there will be a market there if the players are willing to work it.

[StillAWarrior]

+1 on the bolded.  Markus Howard and Sam Hauser, are they being short changed?  Maybe, I can see that.  They could make money off selling their own jerseys, people tune in to specifically watch them play, etc.  Matt Heldt? Harry Froling?  Not so much.  No offense to the kids but they are getting a great deal right now with the free tuition, room and board, meals, etc.

With the athletes, I think it's a bit of a sliding scale.  I have no idea what the actual market would look like, but maybe a kid like Howard or Hauser could get $5k or $10k or something else to endorse a business.  Maybe Marvin Bagley could get $100k.  Hell, maybe more.  And maybe a kid like Heldt could get $500.  Who knows?  But the amount they all could receive would correlate to their value.

And taking it a step further, a wrestler at Iowa could probably earn a little something.  Or a volleyball player at Nebraska.  Provide some value; earn some additional cash.  I'd be surprised if there would be too many athletes in non-revenue sports who could earn much, but there would be some.  And in the revenue sports, it would probably still be a minority.

Another benefit of this, presumably, is that it would keep things out of Title IX because the schools would not be the ones providing the benefit.

[Daniel]

I think at one point Marquette said the total cost to the university for a scholarship athlete (and I can't remember if it was just basketball) is about $250,000 a year considering everything (schollie,  room and board, travel, tutors etc). 

Just saying.

[forgetful]

One thing to keep in mind are the legal consequences of any non-scholarship payments to athletes.  Right now sports benefit greatly by its not-for-profit educational model. 

Any payments to athletes would greatly complicate such a model. 

One such example would be that technically any University that built a stadium/sports facility on a bond, would not be allowed to pay any athlete (including scholarships: e.g. total compensation) in excess of that afforded to individuals in the D-league.  That is immediately a non-starter, as the scholarships already exceed that salary. 

This is due to government regulations that forbid unfair business practices by not-for-profit entities taking advantage of their status to outcompete for-profit entities.

[StillAWarrior]

One thing to keep in mind are the legal consequences of any non-scholarship payments to athletes.  Right now sports benefit greatly by its not-for-profit educational model. 

Any payments to athletes would greatly complicate such a model. 

One such example would be that technically any University that built a stadium/sports facility on a bond, would not be allowed to pay any athlete (including scholarships: e.g. total compensation) in excess of that afforded to individuals in the D-league.  That is immediately a non-starter, as the scholarships already exceed that salary. 

This is due to government regulations that forbid unfair business practices by not-for-profit entities taking advantage of their status to outcompete for-profit entities.

Another potential reason to open up endorsement opportunities rather than have direct payments from the institutions?

[GGGG]

Another thing to consider is schools be allowed to divide up the 13.0 scholarship FTE so that some students get a higher stipend but then some have to pay and be partial walk-ons.  Or a school doesn't have to fill all of its slots.
That way players can negotiate better deals with other schools.  Almost like a salary cap concept. 

That may run afoul of forgetful's bond issue however.

[StillAWarrior]

I think at one point Marquette said the total cost to the university for a scholarship athlete (and I can't remember if it was just basketball) is about $250,000 a year considering everything (schollie,  room and board, travel, tutors etc). 

Just saying.

I'd be curious to see where that number comes from.  I wonder if it's the total budget divided by the total number of scholarship athletes.  That would be an interesting number for Marquette to calculate, but is a really different issue than what the athletes actually get.  For starters, this would divide up the extremely high costs of running the MBB program (Wojo's salary, recruiting, etc.) by lots of athletes who aren't deriving any real benefit from that.

But the underlying point that the athletes are getting a lot value that doesn't show up on their 1098-T form is absolutely true.  Coaching, trainers, travel, tutoring, swag, etc.  It all adds up.

[StillAWarrior]

Another thing to consider is schools be allowed to divide up the 13.0 scholarship FTE so that some students get a higher stipend but then some have to pay and be partial walk-ons.  Or a school doesn't have to fill all of its slots.
That way players can negotiate better deals with other schools.  Almost like a salary cap concept. 

That may run afoul of forgetful's bond issue however.

Not entirely sure what you're referring to, but schools can offer less than a full scholarship if they want.  Under the current system, I think it is pretty much unheard of for basketball because they're all offering full rides in order to be competitive.  But the schools could offer partial scholarships if they wanted to.

And to hopefully avoid the confusion, I'm talking about only the financial aspect.  I'm very well aware that basketball is a "headcount" sport and can only have 13 athletes on scholarship.  They cannot "divide" a scholarship like "equivalency" sports can.  But they can offer something less than a full scholarship.

And, it's quite possible I misunderstood your post entirely and this is not relevant to what you posted.  If that is the case...never mind.

[GGGG]

Not entirely sure what you're referring to, but schools can offer less than a full scholarship if they want.  Under the current system, I think it is pretty much unheard of for basketball because they're all offering full rides in order to be competitive.  But the schools could offer partial scholarships if they wanted to.

And to hopefully avoid the confusion, I'm talking about only the financial aspect.  I'm very well aware that basketball is a "headcount" sport and can only have 13 athletes on scholarship.  They cannot "divide" a scholarship like "equivalency" sports can.  But they can offer something less than a full scholarship.

And, it's quite possible I misunderstood your post entirely and this is not relevant to what you posted.  If that is the case...never mind.

What I am saying is that some students can get the value of 2.0 of a scholarship, while two have to only get 0.5.

But I just realized how dumb that is because the value of private school scholarships is so much more than public.

[Pakuni]

The NCAA allows hockey and baseball players to have agents.
Why not basketball and football players?

The simplest solution is to let players sign with agents whenever they want. If the agent and that player choose to make some private financial arrangement that allows the player to receive money now against future earnings, great. That has no bearing on the university and doesn't cost the school a dime.

The problem with allowing players to take endorsement money is the potential mess that arises when the player's endorsement conflicts with the school's (i.e. kid at Nike school signs shoe deal with adidas; kid does radio spot for competitor of university sponsor). This, of course, also would just make official the underground business of shoe companies steering kids toward certain school. Be prepared for Oregon and Maryland buying every top recruit.