Skip Bayless: Let Boosters Pay Players

[Tugg Speedman]

The fundamental question for me remains, why is it the NCAA's job to be the one that allows this opportunity for these elite of the elite to earn money?

That's not their mission.   Why aren't those clamoring to destroy college athletics and ultimately reducing opportunities for men and women in other sports as well as revenue sports....why aren't you pushing to have a real minor leagues started by those professional sports?  It shouldn't be the NCAA's job to change their model, change what they do for these edge cases.

If a kid doesn't want a free education...fine...go to the minor leagues and get paid.

Correcting above ...

The fundamental question for me remains, why is it the NCAA's job to deny opportunity for these elite of the elite to earn money?

[brandx]

The fundamental question for me remains, why is it the NCAA's job to be the one that allows this opportunity for these elite of the elite to earn money?

That's not their mission.   Why aren't those clamoring to destroy college athletics and ultimately reducing opportunities for men and women in other sports as well as revenue sports....why aren't you pushing to have a real minor leagues started by those professional sports?  It shouldn't be the NCAA's job to change their model, change what they do for these edge cases.

If a kid doesn't want a free education...fine...go to the minor leagues and get paid.

That pesky strawman attacks again. No one is clamoring to destroy college athletics.

[MU82]

That pesky strawman attacks again. No one is clamoring to destroy college athletics.

Exactly.

And I sure would love it if somebody from the NCAA honestly articulated what the organization's "job" is vis-a-vis being the minor league for the NFL in particular but also for other pro sports. Of course, if anybody did that, he or she probably would not be working for the NCAA shortly thereafter!

[ChicosBailBonds]

Correcting above ...

The fundamental question for me remains, why is it the NCAA's job to deny opportunity for these elite of the elite to earn money?

Simple, it is not their mandate.  Their mandate is to administer championships, enforce rules, execute legislation that its members pass, etc, etc.  They have over 1000 schools, multiple divisions in which to do this.  They were never meant to be a professional league, so why do you want them to be when there are professional leagues already out there?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Exactly.

And I sure would love it if somebody from the NCAA honestly articulated what the organization's "job" is vis-a-vis being the minor league for the NFL in particular but also for other pro sports. Of course, if anybody did that, he or she probably would not be working for the NCAA shortly thereafter!

Are you suggesting the NCAA was setup to be the minor leagues for pro football or pro basketball, or are you suggesting that the NFL and the NBA don't want to invest to create such leagues because the college structure exists. 

The distinction is important, I look forward to your answer.

[forgetful]

Correcting above ...

The fundamental question for me remains, why is it the NCAA's job to deny opportunity for these elite of the elite to earn money?

It is not.  If it was truly that marketable and profitable to run a league (football or basketball) with players that are 18-22 and not ready yet for the NBA or NFL, then someone would have created it.  Heck, they would instantly be competitive for the best talent, as the NCAA offers no money, beyond a stipend.

The reason it does not exist is that it is not financially lucrative, the audience base for NCAA stems from affiliation with colleges, that establishes loyalty.  Outside of that these players have no value.

[MU82]

Are you suggesting the NCAA was setup to be the minor leagues for pro football or pro basketball, or are you suggesting that the NFL and the NBA don't want to invest to create such leagues because the college structure exists. 

The distinction is important, I look forward to your answer.

I am suggesting that the NFL and other pro leagues do not want to invest in creating the kind of minor league system baseball and hockey have. I also am suggesting that the NCAA has willingly become a partner in this.

[GGGG]

I am suggesting that the NFL and other pro leagues do not want to invest in creating the kind of minor league system baseball and hockey have. I also am suggesting that the NCAA has willingly become a partner in this.

I would say that the colleges and their conferences have.  I don't think the NCAA as an organization has done so.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I am suggesting that the NFL and other pro leagues do not want to invest in creating the kind of minor league system baseball and hockey have. I also am suggesting that the NCAA has willingly become a partner in this.

I agree with point one, please expand on point two how they have become a willing partner in this. 

The NCAA tournament money from television is about quantity of games and great stories, not about the abilities of a few elite players that could be playing pro.  That contract would exist whether a handful of these kids are in the minor leagues or not.  Football stadiums have been filled for 60+ years at the college level, long before we reached today's situation.  What is the NCAA supposed to do, force a minor league system on those entities?  How is that in the NCAA's control?

[Tugg Speedman]

I agree with point one, please expand on point two how they have become a willing partner in this. 

The NCAA tournament money from television is about quantity of games and great stories, not about the abilities of a few elite players that could be playing pro.  That contract would exist whether a handful of these kids are in the minor leagues or not.  Football stadiums have been filled for 60+ years at the college level, long before we reached today's situation.  What is the NCAA supposed to do, force a minor league system on those entities?  How is that in the NCAA's control?

C'mon CBB, you cannot believe this!

The best teams get all the attention and ratings.  And the best teams have the best players.  And those players are Pro caliber.

Otherwise, D1AA, D2 and D3 (or FCS) would attract the same attention as D1 (or FBS) and that is absolutely not the case.

[MU82]

C'mon CBB, you cannot believe this!

The best teams get all the attention and ratings.  And the best teams have the best players.  And those players are Pro caliber.

Otherwise, D1AA, D2 and D3 (or FCS) would attract the same attention as D1 (or FBS) and that is absolutely not the case.

I agree with this totally, so thanks for saving me the time! I'm much too busy to keep prattling on about this subject ... gotta go finish watching the first season of House of Cards!

[77ncaachamps]

Skip Bayless is back in the news.

To him, that's #missionaccomplished and #donedeal

[MarquetteDano]

It is not.  If it was truly that marketable and profitable to run a league (football or basketball) with players that are 18-22 and not ready yet for the NBA or NFL, then someone would have created it.  Heck, they would instantly be competitive for the best talent, as the NCAA offers no money, beyond a stipend.

The reason it does not exist is that it is not financially lucrative, the audience base for NCAA stems from affiliation with colleges, that establishes loyalty.  Outside of that these players have no value.

Yup.  Summed it up very nicely.

[ChicosBailBonds]

C'mon CBB, you cannot believe this!

The best teams get all the attention and ratings.  And the best teams have the best players.  And those players are Pro caliber.

Otherwise, D1AA, D2 and D3 (or FCS) would attract the same attention as D1 (or FBS) and that is absolutely not the case.

Absolutely. As I've said many times here, I have known Mike Aresco for years and he is the one that brokered the deals on the television side for CBS.  When I ran Mega March Madness for Directv we would talk of what is the key to the tournament, what drives viewership and subscribers.  The story lines are the upsets, how far certain teams go, but the players are interchangeable.  That doesn't mean they don't have to be quality players, of course they do.  But when Duke goes down in the first game, is everyone turning off the sets because Jabari Parker is out?  Absolutely not.

Don't confuse my comments to suggest the talent doesn't have to be high, it does.  However, the viewership is not dictated by INDIVIDUAL talent per se, but the collection of it.  Teams get bumped all the time with great individual talent, or even great team talent, but the ratings hold.  

The best teams DO NOT get all the ratings, by the way.  A number of them do, but because of how the tournament is scheduled on television there is a bit of self selection going on, but doesn't always ring true.  

Be careful of just looking at the Final Four ratings, too.  It's not just the Final Four, though even a Final Four with Wichita State did extremely well, highest in 8 years.  This past Final Four with "ratings juggernaut" Wisconsin, higher still.  Then go look at some of the earlier round games.  Sure, Kentucky, etc pulls in high ratings, but so do many other games, especially those with great upsets.  

If you do wish to use only championship games, I'd point you to Butler v Duke rating of 24 compared to UNC vs MSU 17.6 separated by one year.  A Kentucky Utah did way better than a UCLA Florida.  It's not always about the heavyweights, having one there is huge but the other can be several notches down because people want to see the surprise upsets as well.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I agree with this totally, so thanks for saving me the time! I'm much too busy to keep prattling on about this subject ... gotta go finish watching the first season of House of Cards!

Well, you're wrong...totally...time saved.  LOL

[jesmu84]

So if the lower NCAA divisions had their bball tournaments hosted on CBS/TBS/etc, they'd get the same ratings as the D1 tournament does? Is that what you're saying, CBB?

[forgetful]

So if the lower NCAA divisions had their bball tournaments hosted on CBS/TBS/etc, they'd get the same ratings as the D1 tournament does? Is that what you're saying, CBB?

He's not saying that.  But if you swapped the players from the lower divisions and the upper division's you'd still have similar ratings for the NCAA D1 tournament.  It is the team names and affiliations that matter, the players less so.  Some fans may leave, but the bulk of them would stay.  For the exact same reason that we are fans of MU when they are good, and in the past when they were not.

And the ratings for the lower divisions would still be low.

[MarquetteDano]

So if the lower NCAA divisions had their bball tournaments hosted on CBS/TBS/etc, they'd get the same ratings as the D1 tournament does? Is that what you're saying, CBB?

That is probably not the right question.  The reason why lower NCAA divisions get poor ratings is because of alum and fan support, not just the talent.  A better question is if you swapped players from division 1 with division 2 for a year, which would get better tv ratings?  My bet is on division 1.

[CTWarrior]

I agree with this totally, so thanks for saving me the time! I'm much too busy to keep prattling on about this subject ... gotta go finish watching the first season of House of Cards!

I disagree totally.  If there were minor leagues in basketball and football where all the elite players went, college football and basketball would still be far, far, far more popular than the minor leagues.   People love good ol' State U or their alma mater. 

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Skip Bayless is back in the news.

To him, that's #missionaccomplished and #donedeal

Now this is an interesting topic.

Skip was a reporter/columnist/journalist/media personality presumably making a good living. Then in about 2003? (not sure on exact timing), he started making more and more outlandish comments/commentary, where he himself became part of the story.

Now, professionally, I assume this approach has made him a good amount of $$, but it has also cost him any/all credibility he ever had. Now he's a joke, just trolling for clicks. We all know it.

So, why did he do it? Money?

If you were a successful journalist, would you turn "full heel" if it meant a payday from ESPN? Could you live with trying to play that character all of the time and having it ruin any amount of integrity you ever had?

(I don't know if I could do it, even if it was for a boatload of cash.)

[Tugg Speedman]

Now this is an interesting topic.

Skip was a reporter/columnist/journalist/media personality presumably making a good living. Then in about 2003? (not sure on exact timing), he started making more and more outlandish comments/commentary, where he himself became part of the story.

Now, professionally, I assume this approach has made him a good amount of $$, but it has also cost him any/all credibility he ever had. Now he's a joke, just trolling for clicks. We all know it.

So, why did he do it? Money?

If you were a successful journalist, would you turn "full heel" if it meant a payday from ESPN? Could you live with trying to play that character all of the time and having it ruin any amount of integrity you ever had?

(I don't know if I could do it, even if it was for a boatload of cash.)

To satisfy his ego.

[GooooMarquette]

I disagree totally.  If there were minor leagues in basketball and football where all the elite players went, college football and basketball would still be far, far, far more popular than the minor leagues.   People love good ol' State U or their alma mater.  

+1

[MU82]

Well, you're wrong...totally...time saved.  LOL

It must be such a lonely feeling to be so right about so much so often.

[ChicosBailBonds]

It must be such a lonely feeling to be so right about so much so often.

Should have used teal by me apparently.  Thought it was obvious based on post I responded to.  Oh well. 

At any rate, the NCAA tournament popularity is based on the teams that play, name on the front of the uniforms as well as the David vs Goliath stories.  This is why CBS, Turner signed such a long term deal with the NCAA....it is a formula that sustains itself.  The quality of the games is important, which is to say you can't just throw DIII talent out there, nor did anyone suggest that.  However, if 5% to 10% of the elite players weren't playing, maybe more, the ratings would still be there...the value and entertainment still there. 

[StillAWarrior]

The reason it does not exist is that it is not financially lucrative, the audience base for NCAA stems from affiliation with colleges, that establishes loyalty.  Outside of that these players have no value.

I think that this is a very interesting -- and true -- comment.  I also think it can be used to support either side of the argument.  Personally, I believe that this is a strong justification for not paying players.  The loyalty (i.e., the money) is based upon the institution, not the players.  Sure, alums want their schools to be the best and have the best players.  But, I believe that if a minor league was developed for football pulling the cream of the crop, the alums at Alabama, Michigan, OSU, etc. would still fill their stadia and buy jerseys hoping that their alma mater would win the national championship.  I don't really recall people losing interest in NCAA basketball when the best players were going straight to the NBA.  People root for the name on the front of the jersey and I don't think the creation of minor leagues would change that.