Well that was a waste

[Cheeks]

Examples, please.
Also, I didn't know people had a right to win wrestling matches. Must have slept that day in Constitutional law.

It’s a tough situation, but in my opinion women have a right to compete in a competition for women that has biological women, not men that identify as which puts women at a massive physical disadvantage.  Do the rights of those young women matter?

Examples...in the sidebar there have been a number of them here with the most recent example of a male who won a NcAA title this Spring in a women’s track event after the year prior competing as a male and getting destroyed.  The women that dreamed of winning a national title in that event never had a chance,  their opportunity trumped by having to compete against the opposite gender.  Several wrestling examples on the sidebar.  That seems to fit the comparison to a tee that the poster was stating.

[Cheeks]

Dan Wetzel crushes the chicken littles.
(Ad hominems to follow?)


This is painfully ridiculous. Start with this, Pac-12 schools have billions in operating expenses and cash on hand to easily afford, if it so chooses, to field teams in dozens and dozens of sports. Stanford has its $24.7 billion endowment, after all. A dozen softball scholarships isn’t going to break them.
What the league is saying is that it doesn’t value those sports or those athletes. Essentially, Stanford, or USC or Arizona State, doesn’t want to pay for a softball team. Yes, they have the money to, but they are acknowledging that it doesn’t make much sense for a university to fund.
As such, they would stop (or lower) the funding unless they can continue to have football and men’s basketball players to pay for them based on those athletes not getting their own endorsement deals. It’s like a forced donation to the athletic department.
If those players get their money, the schools are saying, then they shut down the Olympic sports. But if the schools don’t care about those sports, why should the football and basketball stars care? Why is that their obligation?
Really, though, if the Pac-12, or anyone else, really cared about scholarship opportunities for Olympic sports (men or women), then they would have worked over the years to increase the NCAA limits on the amount of full rides that can be offered. The more scholarships the better, right?
College sports have been booming of late, with television money filling and refilling the coffers. Yet there has been very little movement on increasing the number of athletes (male or female) who receive scholarships.
Almost all teams run at a deficiency. It’s not uncommon for a women’s soccer team to have 30 players on the roster. Yet the NCAA allows just 14 scholarships, forcing the deals to be divided up. Same with baseball or track or swimming or so on.
Instead the administrators just spent all the new billions on themselves. In 2010-11 — just this decade — the University of Michigan employed 253 people (coaches and administrators) at an average salary of $73,382, according to school records. By 2018-19, it was up to 388 and $101,137. So almost no new scholarships for the players and their families, but 53.3 percent more employees are making 37.8 percent more money.
And college administrators want to claim they care about Olympic sports and female athletes?
When the arguments go that off-kilter and that far from reality, you know one side has nothing to stand on.
That was the IOC in the 1980s. That’s the NCAA today.
Whatever happens with SB 206 and name, image and likeness, the world will survive. Doomsayers be damned.


https://sports.yahoo.com/why-ncaa-should-embrace-free-market-for-college-athletes-in-wake-of-california-state-bill-206-000714957.html

Ice cream for everyone.  A car for you...and you...and you.   I like Dan a lot, but a terrible argument.  4% annual raise for those Michigan employees....wow, they are making out like bandits.   . Hmm, how many of those staff positions were to better the experience for student athletes...tudors, academic advisors, trainers, coaches, etc, etc.  Ah yes, don’t want to talk about that part.

[WhiteTrash]

Dan Wetzel crushes the chicken littles.
(Ad hominems to follow?)


This is painfully ridiculous. Start with this, Pac-12 schools have billions in operating expenses and cash on hand to easily afford, if it so chooses, to field teams in dozens and dozens of sports. Stanford has its $24.7 billion endowment, after all. A dozen softball scholarships isn’t going to break them.
What the league is saying is that it doesn’t value those sports or those athletes. Essentially, Stanford, or USC or Arizona State, doesn’t want to pay for a softball team. Yes, they have the money to, but they are acknowledging that it doesn’t make much sense for a university to fund.
As such, they would stop (or lower) the funding unless they can continue to have football and men’s basketball players to pay for them based on those athletes not getting their own endorsement deals. It’s like a forced donation to the athletic department.
If those players get their money, the schools are saying, then they shut down the Olympic sports. But if the schools don’t care about those sports, why should the football and basketball stars care? Why is that their obligation?
Really, though, if the Pac-12, or anyone else, really cared about scholarship opportunities for Olympic sports (men or women), then they would have worked over the years to increase the NCAA limits on the amount of full rides that can be offered. The more scholarships the better, right?
College sports have been booming of late, with television money filling and refilling the coffers. Yet there has been very little movement on increasing the number of athletes (male or female) who receive scholarships.
Almost all teams run at a deficiency. It’s not uncommon for a women’s soccer team to have 30 players on the roster. Yet the NCAA allows just 14 scholarships, forcing the deals to be divided up. Same with baseball or track or swimming or so on.
Instead the administrators just spent all the new billions on themselves. In 2010-11 — just this decade — the University of Michigan employed 253 people (coaches and administrators) at an average salary of $73,382, according to school records. By 2018-19, it was up to 388 and $101,137. So almost no new scholarships for the players and their families, but 53.3 percent more employees are making 37.8 percent more money.
And college administrators want to claim they care about Olympic sports and female athletes?
When the arguments go that off-kilter and that far from reality, you know one side has nothing to stand on.
That was the IOC in the 1980s. That’s the NCAA today.
Whatever happens with SB 206 and name, image and likeness, the world will survive. Doomsayers be damned.


https://sports.yahoo.com/why-ncaa-should-embrace-free-market-for-college-athletes-in-wake-of-california-state-bill-206-000714957.html

Dan makes some decent points but this is mostly 'drive by journalism'.

Okay, we know Stanford's endowment, which I assume Dan includes as a good representation of Div I schools in California. I mean, that's what one would put in a persuasive piece, not some ridiculous extreme; that's what you'd expect from low brow 'click baits'.

Somebody tell me what Cal State Northridge's endowment is?

I honestly don't know the answer to this question - can proceeds from endowments be used for need the university sees fit or are they 'ear marked' by donors for the benefit of particular programs? Dan's article makes it seem like these funds can be used for whatever the school wants. I doubt Dan would mislead his readers.

[Cheeks]

Dan makes some decent points but this is mostly 'drive by journalism'.

Okay, we know Stanford's endowment, which I assume Dan includes as a good representation of Div I schools in California. I mean, that's what one would put in a persuasive piece, not some ridiculous extreme; that's what you'd expect from low brow 'click baits'.

Somebody tell me what Cal State Northridge's endowment is?

I honestly don't know the answer to this question - can proceeds from endowments be used for need the university sees fit or are they 'ear marked' by donors for the benefit of particular programs? Dan's article makes it seem like these funds can be used for whatever the school wants. I doubt Dan would mislead his readers.

Cal state Long Beach is $77 million.  Fullerton is $65 million.  Northridge $110M.  Bakersfield is $26M. You are absolutely correct, nothing but clickbait and tapping into the extreme examples....just like the 1% these folks are try to benefit so they use 1% examples.

[Shooter McGavin]

Assuming this goes through without some kind of cap, what should MU do to get ahead of it?  This may need a thread of its own but I’d like here everyone’s ideas.  For example, should MU start a new division in the athletic department whose sole job is canvassing local businesses to get money for players?  Should Wojo have concrete financial offers that he can extend to prospective recruits during in home visits?  What ideas do people have to help MU keep up with larger/wealthier schools?   

[dgies9156]

Ok, a couple of thoughts on the future of college athletics.

1) The idea that a university will spend its endowment on sports is absurd. The endowment is an investment fund. Spending the endowment is like eating seed corn. Dumb. The endowment kicks off an investment return. The return is what you spend on things like scholarships, buildings, new programs etc.

2) One must ask why universities offer athletics. Division 1 college athletics exists primarily for public relations. A good football or basketball program generates visibility, gets people interested and ultimately generates a broader student body and more alumni contributions. At some schools, it even makes money! There are secondary benefits, including quality of life, community spirit and loyalty, but the real reason athletics exist is to further the institution.

3) Given the rationale for athletics, one has to ask, "what's the purpose of Olympic sports and other minor sports?" Apart from meeting the requirements of the law regarding gender opportunity, the only reason for having them either is to meet the requirements of a conference or for student recreation/exercise.

Within this framework, legislation in California and other states allowing athletes to earn off their likeness etc., makes all the sense in the world. Marquette can and will compete with the biggest and financially strongest schools for paid or endorsed athletes if there is economic value to an athlete in coming to Marquette and if there is continued economic value for Marquette in offering basketball and other sports.

[Uncle Rico]

Dan makes some decent points but this is mostly 'drive by journalism'.

Okay, we know Stanford's endowment, which I assume Dan includes as a good representation of Div I schools in California. I mean, that's what one would put in a persuasive piece, not some ridiculous extreme; that's what you'd expect from low brow 'click baits'.

Somebody tell me what Cal State Northridge's endowment is?

I honestly don't know the answer to this question - can proceeds from endowments be used for need the university sees fit or are they 'ear marked' by donors for the benefit of particular programs? Dan's article makes it seem like these funds can be used for whatever the school wants. I doubt Dan would mislead his readers.

Why has Michigan hired 130 new administrators and raised the average salary nearly $30,000?   That money could go to funding more scholarships in the Olympic/non-revenue sports that leagues and administrators are so worried about because some athletes might earn off their likeness.  The truth is, the last thing the NCAA or universities want to do is, spend money on the students, especially those that don’t generate revenue.  The hypocrisy is amazing.

And spare me they may have hired tutors and trainers BS.  You know what would be more beneficial for a woman playing tennis at Michigan than another tutor?  A full scholarship

[Mr. Sand-Knit]

Seeing as how the “d” is really not near the “t” on the key board Chicos must be arguing for descendants of the English royal dynasty to be involved.  In addition to littering up the entire board with “pay attention to me” posts he really is losing it. Does some one live near him? Can we alert the family that he is off his meds again?

[MU82]

I wonder what interwebs fan sites would have said about the "decimated" future of college basketball back in the '70s when athletes were finally allowed to go to the NBA before their eligibility expired.

In retrospect, I cannot fathom how college hoops survived that doomsday scenario.

[Pakuni]

Ok, a couple of thoughts on the future of college athletics.

1) The idea that a university will spend its endowment on sports is absurd. The endowment is an investment fund. Spending the endowment is like eating seed corn. Dumb. The endowment kicks off an investment return. The return is what you spend on things like scholarships, buildings, new programs etc.

2) One must ask why universities offer athletics. Division 1 college athletics exists primarily for public relations. A good football or basketball program generates visibility, gets people interested and ultimately generates a broader student body and more alumni contributions. At some schools, it even makes money! There are secondary benefits, including quality of life, community spirit and loyalty, but the real reason athletics exist is to further the institution.

3) Given the rationale for athletics, one has to ask, "what's the purpose of Olympic sports and other minor sports?" Apart from meeting the requirements of the law regarding gender opportunity, the only reason for having them either is to meet the requirements of a conference or for student recreation/exercise.

Within this framework, legislation in California and other states allowing athletes to earn off their likeness etc., makes all the sense in the world. Marquette can and will compete with the biggest and financially strongest schools for paid or endorsed athletes if there is economic value to an athlete in coming to Marquette and if there is continued economic value for Marquette in offering basketball and other sports.

I'm not sure Wetzel is suggesting using the endowment itself on athletic scholarships, but as you say, the return is spent on a variety of university needs. If the universities truly believe in the necessity and benefits of then Olympic sports, why not use some of those endowment proceeds to support them? The answer seems obvious.
Your other points are well taken.

[MU82]

Former Duke star and current ESPN analyst Jay Williams:

“It’s already been professionalism. It’s been professionalism for everyone else: for the coaches, for the athletic directors, for the assistant coaches, for everybody else but the players. My jersey sales alone did close to $2 million my last year in school. I received no percentage of that, none at all.”

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Oh you just wait for that last question to be answered....we already know by answers here that it is super cool for women to lose NCAA and high school championship races, wrestling matches, etc....their rights be damned....their rights get trumped by other rights....so I have no doubt some here would be just fine with your hypothetical because they have already supported similar situations in actual events.

The same nonsense that lead to the argument that legalizing gay marriage would mean I could marry my dog.  Slippery slope, chicken little nonsense.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

The NCAA does not have to fight any state.

The NCAA has the right to continue business as usual.

The states have the right to pass laws that make their student athletes ineligible under NCAA rules.

What happens if California passes a law prohibiting gender division of sports because it is not PC to restrict people because of their gender? Are you cool with MU's women's v-ball team playing a Stanford team of all men in the NCAA tournament?

This is all 100% true.  However, what if similar laws are passed in other states?  Is the NCAA really going to disqualify all teams from California and a handful of other states?  That would be absurd.  The NCAA is going to look more and more out of touch, especially when you hear stuff like this:

@DanWolken
Have heard from numerous people inside college athletics who are very discouraged by how poorly the NCAA is messaging its reaction to the California bill.

Coming out with a hard-line on this issue is going to make them look worse.  They have to manage it.  However the way that they managed the agents issue leads me to believe that they'll f*ck this one up too.

[mu03eng]

Dan makes some decent points but this is mostly 'drive by journalism'.

Okay, we know Stanford's endowment, which I assume Dan includes as a good representation of Div I schools in California. I mean, that's what one would put in a persuasive piece, not some ridiculous extreme; that's what you'd expect from low brow 'click baits'.

Somebody tell me what Cal State Northridge's endowment is?

I honestly don't know the answer to this question - can proceeds from endowments be used for need the university sees fit or are they 'ear marked' by donors for the benefit of particular programs? Dan's article makes it seem like these funds can be used for whatever the school wants. I doubt Dan would mislead his readers.

Yeah but it's not like Cal State Northridge is gonna lose a lot of money from sponsors because they are racing to pay all the Northridge football or basketball stars. So it's fair that the "rich" schools be the example because this NIL will not impact the lower tier schools all that much because I just don't think sponsorship money moves from the schools to the athletes at that kind of rate to be that impactful.

Further, his point was that schools have had an absolute sprawl of infrastructure growth in terms of number of employees, etc without the work getting more volumous. In the age of automation, virtual engagement tools, etc the fact that athletic department sizes are growing significantly even through the number of athletes and/or sports is not is appalling.

[mu03eng]

This is all 100% true.  However, what if similar laws are passed in other states?  Is the NCAA really going to disqualify all teams from California and a handful of other states?  That would be absurd.  The NCAA is going to look more and more out of touch, especially when you hear stuff like this:

@DanWolken
Have heard from numerous people inside college athletics who are very discouraged by how poorly the NCAA is messaging its reaction to the California bill.

Coming out with a hard-line on this issue is going to make them look worse.  They have to manage it.  However the way that they managed the agents issue leads me to believe that they'll f*ck this one up too.

The NCAA will not be able to put their finger in all of the holes in the dam AND there one weapon is disqualification....if more and more states pass some form of legislation like this the NCAA devalues their sole means of revenue generation the athletic events themselves. Let's pretend for a second that California, New York, and Florida alone pass these laws and so all students-athletes at those schools are ineligible to take part in the NCAA basketball tournament.....you're telling me that the tournament has the same value(ie media rights $) it does now in that scenario with teams like UCLA, USC, Oregon, Florida, Florida State, Syracuse, St John's, etc not taking part.

I don't think the California law passes a legal review but the genie is out, enough states will pass laws allowing the NIL profitability that the NCAA "banning" schools in those states from the national competitions will be the nuclear option and will end the NCAA anyway.

The NCAA has to reform on this issue or die.

[Uncle Rico]

Looks like another state that Barry Alvarez can’t schedule in and more schools that will be ineligible

https://twitter.com/jonrothstein/status/1178999274203467776?s=21

[mikekinsellaMVP]

The NCAA will not be able to put their finger in all of the holes in the dam AND there one weapon is disqualification....if more and more states pass some form of legislation like this the NCAA devalues their sole means of revenue generation the athletic events themselves. Let's pretend for a second that California, New York, and Florida alone pass these laws and so all students-athletes at those schools are ineligible to take part in the NCAA basketball tournament.....you're telling me that the tournament has the same value(ie media rights $) it does now in that scenario with teams like UCLA, USC, Oregon, Florida, Florida State, Syracuse, St John's, etc not taking part.

I don't think the California law passes a legal review but the genie is out, enough states will pass laws allowing the NIL profitability that the NCAA "banning" schools in those states from the national competitions will be the nuclear option and will end the NCAA anyway.

The NCAA has to reform on this issue or die.

"UC-Eugene" is just a nickname, you know.   

[mu03eng]

"UC-Eugene" is just a nickname, you know.   

[bilsu]

They talked about this on CNBC this morning. They basically said the NCAA will not challenge, because the federal government would sue them to break up their monopoly.

I am not against players profiting from their likeness. However, I see this benefiting largely the guys that are projected to be draft picks. Lessors players will be receiving very little. In my opinion this is just going to destroy team unity. The way I see it, if this was in effect last year the break down would be something like this.
Markus $50,000
Sam $10,000
Sam & Joey $10,000
Joey $1,000
John $500
You can go through every power 6 team (excluding the blue bloods) and basically only one or two players are going to do well. The rest will get chump change.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Hey Cheeks.  Just a reminder that I wanted to take you up on your offer to have access to these research articles.  Thanks!

Free agency has been bad for pro sports except when they put in a salary cap and other mechanisms to offset the negative aspects of it.  It was killing the NBA until the latest CBA.  Surprised you didn’t know this.  MU Sports Law program has done several excellent research articles on this.  Would you like access to them?

Yes.  Please provide these.

[Pakuni]

They talked about this on CNBC this morning. They basically said the NCAA will not challenge, because the federal government would sue them to break up their monopoly.

I am not against players profiting from their likeness. However, I see this benefiting largely the guys that are projected to be draft picks. Lessors players will be receiving very little. In my opinion this is just going to destroy team unity. The way I see it, if this was in effect last year the break down would be something like this.
Markus $50,000
Sam $10,000
Sam & Joey $10,000
Joey $1,000
John $500
You can go through every power 6 team (excluding the blue bloods) and basically only one or two players are going to do well. The rest will get chump change.

Star players will always get more at every level ... more media attention, more fan attention, more awards, louder cheers during introductions, special treatment from the coaching staff, etc. If all those things don't decimate team unity, I'm not sure why some endorsement dollars will.

And this sort of imbalance already exists in the pros, of course. Aaron Rodgers earns nearly twice as much as anyone else on the Packers, and five times as much as about 40 guys on the roster. On any NBA roster, the top 4-5 guys eat up the majority of the team's cap space. And that's not even addressing endorsement money, attention, deferential treatment, etc.

[lawdog77]

They talked about this on CNBC this morning. They basically said the NCAA will not challenge, because the federal government would sue them to break up their monopoly.

I am not against players profiting from their likeness. However, I see this benefiting largely the guys that are projected to be draft picks. Lessors players will be receiving very little. In my opinion this is just going to destroy team unity. The way I see it, if this was in effect last year the break down would be something like this.
Markus $50,000
Sam $10,000
Sam & Joey $10,000
Joey $1,000
John $500
You can go through every power 6 team (excluding the blue bloods) and basically only one or two players are going to do well. The rest will get chump change.

I think the numbets are the great unknown. How.much would a shoe.companu.pay Markus for his likeness?

[Pakuni]

And now Pennsylvania legislators are introducing similar legislation.
That's now four of the five most populous states in the U.S.

[Shooter McGavin]

That’s great.  It’s going to happen.  How does MU get in front of this or is it too early to say?  I’m assuming that there will be no cap on earnings because that would be inherently unfair to the players as well.  Do we need to start shaking the bushes now?  Start a new department for student athletes that will pay them more that other ADs/schools.  I’m sure the biggest proponents of this have thought this through.  I’d like to hear your ideas.

[muguru]

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/aztecs/story/2019-09-30/fair-pay-to-play-california-ncaa-gavin-newsom-name-image-likeness-college-sports-student-athletes