Main Menu
collapse

Resources

2024-2025 SOTG Tally


2024-25 Season SoG Tally
Jones, K.10
Mitchell6
Joplin4
Ross2
Gold1

'23-24 '22-23
'21-22 * '20-21 * '19-20
'18-19 * '17-18 * '16-17
'15-16 * '14-15 * '13-14
'12-13 * '11-12 * '10-11

Big East Standings

Recent Posts

Pope Leo XIV by HutchwasClutch
[Today at 06:50:16 PM]


Ethan Johnston to Marquette by tower912
[Today at 05:00:02 PM]


OT MU adds swimming program by Uncle Rico
[Today at 01:59:06 PM]


2025-26 Schedule by Galway Eagle
[Today at 01:47:03 PM]


NIL Money by MU82
[Today at 08:54:49 AM]


Recruiting as of 4/15/25 by Juan Anderson's Mixtape
[May 07, 2025, 10:37:23 PM]


APR Updates by Jay Bee
[May 07, 2025, 10:26:24 PM]

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address. We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or signup NOW!

Next up: A long offseason

Marquette
66
Marquette
Scrimmage
Date/Time: Oct 4, 2025
TV: NA
Schedule for 2024-25
New Mexico
75

WhiteTrash

Not sure this belongs here or the Super Bar.

With the massive CBB scandal front and center everyone in the media is now an expert on college athletics. I'm sure everyone has heard how the NCAA is to blame, how players need to be paid, how unfair the system is, these kids are slave labor, etc., etc. The 'drive by' media is having a field day picking off the low hanging fruit during their 120 second analysis of issue. (like all my cliche's?) But if one really takes the time to think through the issues and proposed changes, this is a massively complicated issue with potentially enormous consequences to college athletics and possibly the institutions themselves due to the amount of money involved.

I'll try to be as brief as possible and I'd love to hear others input and comments.

1. Paying players. Okay, to keep it simple I'll use one proposal I heard yesterday on a national radio show. $50,000 per year per player. Oh, and he generously said all the schools athletes would receive this to avoid any discrimination issues. That amounts to roughly $6.8 billion per year for Division I schools by my rough math. His point about avoiding discrimination issues was exactly right on. To make this work under the 'non-for-profit' educational umbrella with the institutions receiving massive amounts of governmental funds I see no other way around this. $6.8 billion, let that sink in. This might work for the P5 and Big East and maybe AAC or MWC schools but this I think will be a stretch for say the A10 and CUSA schools much less the rest of Division I. And how long before the media and players start complaining that $50,000 is way to little compared to the billions the NCAA is generating in revenues?

Of course you could only pay the players in revenue generating sports. How do you define that? Do you pay the players at Michigan the same as at Norfolk Sate? How do you deal with Title 9? Does that trip the switch to make the players employees in a for profit business? If so, do the schools loose their tax-exempt status? Can you imagine the tax liability, including real and personal property taxes, for say the University of Wisconsin?

In short, paying players will cause a seismic shift in college athletics. Maybe its time for it but make no mistake, it will be more that just a tweek in the NCAA rules.

2. Let the players profit from personal endorsements. This is another popular idea I've heard in the past 48 hours. Hell, this does not involve the school or the coach paying players. No advantage over other member schools right? Great idea? NO.What an idiotic loophole. On the most simplistic level, the SEC and Big 12 schools boosters will have every football and basketball player under 6 to 7 figure 'endorsement' deal faster than you can say 'cheating', with every other P5 school's boosters right behind them. If you could some how restrict this to legitimate endorsements (i'd don't know how) the biggest schools and those in the biggest conferences with the best TV deals get an automatic unfair advantage. The NCAA is not the NFL or NBA with everyone under a national TV package. This would even make it hard for Nebraska in football and Duke in basketball to compete with their relativity small fan/TV markets. 

Floorslapper

Best criteria for players being paid:

Does your sport (regardless of gender) have a profit/loss in the black?

If so, the athletes should be eligible to be compensated, tied to the salary of the coach of their respective program.  It is absurd that a guy like Tom Crean essentially became a mega millionaire, largely due to Dwyane Wade.

So, how does it work?  The NCAA enforces a mandate that a university must match dollar for dollar what is being paid to the head coach, and place that money into an annuity or S&P500 Index Fund every year.  Players would become eligible to draw money based on their years of service, once they reach 40 years old (so that don't run the risk of blowing the money when they are young and dumb..as are most young men.)

This would help control coaches salaries, would correlate value based on the budget/marquee of the program - meaning kids going to schools with the highest paid coaches (usually the blue chip programs and recruits) would stand to benefit the most financially.


bilsu

Universities should just give up sports for a few years, until the players learn to appreciate what they could of had.

WhiteTrash

Quote from: Floorslapper on February 25, 2018, 07:16:52 PM
Best criteria for players being paid:

Does your sport (regardless of gender) have a profit/loss in the black?

If so, the athletes should be eligible to be compensated, tied to the salary of the coach of their respective program.  It is absurd that a guy like Tom Crean essentially became a mega millionaire, largely due to Dwyane Wade.

So, how does it work?  The NCAA enforces a mandate that a university must match dollar for dollar what is being paid to the head coach, and place that money into an annuity or S&P500 Index Fund every year.  Players would become eligible to draw money based on their years of service, once they reach 40 years old (so that don't run the risk of blowing the money when they are young and dumb..as are most young men.)

This would help control coaches salaries, would correlate value based on the budget/marquee of the program - meaning kids going to schools with the highest paid coaches (usually the blue chip programs and recruits) would stand to benefit the most financially.

I like the idea in theory but the premise behind the NCAA and amateur athletics is to create an even playing field. If some programs are creating compensation, and some more than others, then that blows up the NCAA. Also all the universities would have to agree to a standard accounting method and audit. I can't ever see that happening. This is a very stick wicket.

muwarrior69

Does a tenured Philosophy professor make 50K?

TheyWereCones

Players do get paid in tuition, room, & board, and several other perks.  If they don't think the compensation is fair, they don't HAVE to play college sports.  It's a free market and if they believe that doing something else is more worth their time, then they are free to pursue any other venture.  Why is it not this simple?  Paying players beyond this would destroy the sport.
Those could have been guests at her wedding.

WhiteTrash

Quote from: muwarrior69 on February 25, 2018, 09:00:38 PM
Does a tenured Philosophy professor make 50K?

Good question. But how much money does Philosophy make for the university? I do still remember the year Nietzsche upset Plato in the Sweet Sixteen and busted my bracket. Uhg! That Übermensch was a one hell of a defense. 

MarquetteDano

Quote from: bilsu on February 25, 2018, 07:20:53 PM
Universities should just give up sports for a few years, until the players learn to appreciate what they could of had.

Players coulld go play in Europe, Asia, and D League and see how "wonderful" they are for the 15% who could make it. The other 85% would go to school and pay. Or get a job.

Some sort of much, much lower stipend prob doable but anything over $10k prob not.

GGGG

Quote from: TheyWereCones on February 25, 2018, 09:11:55 PM
Players do get paid in tuition, room, & board, and several other perks.  If they don't think the compensation is fair, they don't HAVE to play college sports.  It's a free market and if they believe that doing something else is more worth their time, then they are free to pursue any other venture.  Why is it not this simple?  Paying players beyond this would destroy the sport.


It's not a free market. A free market would let those more valuable earn more. That's not what is happening.

Just allow players to profit off their likeness, sign with an agent and get endorsement deals. The schools themselves don't have to pay them more. Let third parties do it.

Eldon

Quote from: muwarrior69 on February 25, 2018, 09:00:38 PM
Does a tenured Philosophy professor make 50K?

That's pretty close

GGGG

Quote from: bilsu on February 25, 2018, 07:20:53 PM
Universities should just give up sports for a few years, until the players learn to appreciate what they could of had.


How condescending and paternalistic of you.

WhiteTrash

Quote from: TheyWereCones on February 25, 2018, 09:11:55 PM
Players do get paid in tuition, room, & board, and several other perks.  If they don't think the compensation is fair, they don't HAVE to play college sports.  It's a free market and if they believe that doing something else is more worth their time, then they are free to pursue any other venture.  Why is it not this simple?  Paying players beyond this would destroy the sport.

THIS is the notion I keep coming back to. This is college athletics with student athletes. If the NBA or NFL want to set up a minor leagues, there is nothing stopping them. It may hurt the quality of the college game compared to what it is now, but at least the college game will be fair and equal. The games will be competitive relative to the talent on the field or court.

Hell if the P5 school fans don't like it then maybe the Saints can have a minor league team called the Tigers sponsored by LSU or the Packers can have "The Badgers brought to you by the University of Wisconsin".

MarquetteDano

Quote from: #bansultan on February 25, 2018, 09:25:26 PM

It's not a free market. A free market would let those more valuable earn more. That's not what is happening.

Just allow players to profit off their likeness, sign with an agent and get endorsement deals. The schools themselves don't have to pay them more. Let third parties do it.

Like this much more but need to make sure it doesnt turn into big achools even have more advantages than they do today. I am sure some experienced people could come up with rules to keep the playing field relatively level.

Eldon

Quote from: TheyWereCones on February 25, 2018, 09:11:55 PM
Players do get paid in tuition, room, & board, and several other perks.  If they don't think the compensation is fair, they don't HAVE to play college sports.  It's a free market and if they believe that doing something else is more worth their time, then they are free to pursue any other venture.  Why is it not this simple?  Paying players beyond this would destroy the sport.

Definitely.

Here's the problem.  The NCAA imposes the restriction that athletes cannot profit off of their likeness.  I'm okay with that.  However, they have to realize that this is going to open a black market.

As I see it, the long-term solution for closing the black market is one of two:
1) Somehow let the athletes profit from their likeness
2) Let the NCAA grow some teeth and punish the pay-for-players schools harshly. 

WhiteTrash

Quote from: #bansultan on February 25, 2018, 09:25:26 PM

It's not a free market. A free market would let those more valuable earn more. That's not what is happening.

Just allow players to profit off their likeness, sign with an agent and get endorsement deals. The schools themselves don't have to pay them more. Let third parties do it.

Okay, but how do you address my concerns with this solution I pointed out in my original post?

GGGG

Quote from: WhiteTrash on February 25, 2018, 09:37:27 PM
Okay, but how do you address my concerns with this solution I pointed out in my original post?


If someone wants to pay a player $100,000 let them pay it. Better that then paying him under the table.  Really we have the vast majority of players going to a handful of schools already. What's going to change? 

TheyWereCones

Quote from: #bansultan on February 25, 2018, 09:25:26 PM

It's not a free market. A free market would let those more valuable earn more. That's not what is happening.

Just allow players to profit off their likeness, sign with an agent and get endorsement deals. The schools themselves don't have to pay them more. Let third parties do it.

Yes, it is a free market.  If they think they can make more money in ANY other job other than playing COLLEGE basketball, they can go do it.  If they MUST play basketball because that is the only skill they will allow themselves to have, then they will have to try to make the best living possible doing it just like everybody else in the world who confines themselves to a limited skill set.  They are free to go play in Europe for a year and get paid, and then go to the NBA later if they are good enough.  These are the rules of playing college basketball.  Why would you enter into a contract if you disagree with these rules and then whine about it later?  I wish players could go straight to the NBA.  But the NBA made rules against that.  If these rules are too oppressive, maybe they should pay to get a degree or earn an academic scholarship like everyone else and learn another life skill then live under the horrible conditions of the basketball world.  There is nothing stopping any one of these kids from becoming an entrepreneur or ANYTHING else.  I don't understand what's not fair about a $100k+ free education.  Many other people who will contribute a lot more to society than putting an orange ball through a hoop would love to take their scholarship if they don't like it.
Those could have been guests at her wedding.

TheyWereCones

Quote from: Eldon on February 25, 2018, 09:36:42 PM
Definitely.

Here's the problem.  The NCAA imposes the restriction that athletes cannot profit off of their likeness.  I'm okay with that.  However, they have to realize that this is going to open a black market.

As I see it, the long-term solution for closing the black market is one of two:
1) Somehow let the athletes profit from their likeness
2) Let the NCAA grow some teeth and punish the pay-for-players schools harshly.

Exactly correct.  The NCAA made rules but isn't exactly doing a great job enforcing them.  So here we are.
Those could have been guests at her wedding.

WhiteTrash

Quote from: #bansultan on February 25, 2018, 09:42:46 PM

If someone wants to pay a player $100,000 let them pay it. Better that then paying him under the table.  Really we have the vast majority of players going to a handful of schools already. What's going to change?

Fair enough. I can see your point. I happen to disagree. I think the P5 schools would completely dominate both football and basketball. They have way bigger and motivated fan bases that will pay for players through 'endorsement' deals. I think a kid like Joey Hauser would be going to UW because there would be huge endorsement deals waiting for him funded by a huge Wisconsin fan base(not just alumni). And I would not fault him one bit for doing so. Additionally, top coaches will migrate to the P5 schools for the benefit of landing the best players. IMO this would truly throw any sense of equality in the NCAA out the window.

WarriorDad

Bad idea to allow payment for likeness.  Larger schools that have 2x, 3x, 8x the alumni will buy players through endorsements.  The larger the alumni base, the more apt you are to find the big fish that can pay. 


The rationale for paying is because some are getting paid anyway?  The rationale to stop burglary then is to not charge for items anymore since some people are stealing?

If this idea were to happen, the Big East would be gone.  Small schools like Marquette, no longer playing DI basketball.  It would make matters significantly worse and also ruin the sport.  The greatness of the NCAA tournament, gone.  What a terrible idea. 
"No one is more hated than he who speaks the truth."
— Plato

WhiteTrash

Quote from: WarriorDad on February 25, 2018, 10:08:23 PM
Bad idea to allow payment for likeness.  Larger schools that have 2x, 3x, 8x the alumni will buy players through endorsements.  The larger the alumni base, the more apt you are to find the big fish that can pay. 


The rationale for paying is because some are getting paid anyway?  The rationale to stop burglary then is to not charge for items anymore since some people are stealing?

If this idea were to happen, the Big East would be gone.  Small schools like Marquette, no longer playing DI basketball.  It would make matters significantly worse and also ruin the sport.  The greatness of the NCAA tournament, gone.  What a terrible idea.

Well said. This is not an easy issue to resolve and for all the crap the NCAA has and is getting, they have a very difficult job. I do not envy them. Plus everyone seems to forget the NCAA is the member schools, not some third party oversight organization.

#UnleashSean

Quote from: WhiteTrash on February 25, 2018, 09:17:56 PM
Good question. But how much money does Philosophy make for the university? I do still remember the year Nietzsche upset Plato in the Sweet Sixteen and busted my bracket. Uhg! That Übermensch was a one hell of a defense.

Say a student pays 10k per semester in tuiton. Has 12 credits. Philosophy is 3 of them. So pays 2.5k for that class. Philosophy professor has maybe 300 kids a semester? 750k per semester.

forgetful

Quote from: Floorslapper on February 25, 2018, 07:16:52 PM
Best criteria for players being paid:

Does your sport (regardless of gender) have a profit/loss in the black?

If so, the athletes should be eligible to be compensated, tied to the salary of the coach of their respective program.  It is absurd that a guy like Tom Crean essentially became a mega millionaire, largely due to Dwyane Wade.

So, how does it work?  The NCAA enforces a mandate that a university must match dollar for dollar what is being paid to the head coach, and place that money into an annuity or S&P500 Index Fund every year.  Players would become eligible to draw money based on their years of service, once they reach 40 years old (so that don't run the risk of blowing the money when they are young and dumb..as are most young men.)

This would help control coaches salaries, would correlate value based on the budget/marquee of the program - meaning kids going to schools with the highest paid coaches (usually the blue chip programs and recruits) would stand to benefit the most financially.

Who is going to define the accounting rules for what constitutes a profit/loss.  Who is going to enforce it?  Where is the money for that enforcement going to come from. 

The fact is, right now most schools use creative accounting to make it appear as if sports break even or generate a profit, because they are almost all operating in the red. 

And no payment system is going to stop people from breaking the rules.  If everyone gets $50k, then the top players are going to say they should get $150k, and get paid under the table anyway.  It doesn't solve the actual problem. 

wisblue

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.

TAMU, Knower of Ball

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.
Quote from: Goose on January 15, 2023, 08:43:46 PM
TAMU

I do know, Newsie is right on you knowing ball.


Previous topic - Next topic