Unverified Voracity Inhales Through Teeth
Election Day in Ann Arbor. Various offices are decided today because Ann Arbor is a one-party town. One last plug for the ol' endorsements if you haven't voted yet. Polls are open until eight and all reports from polling places is that there are no lines—a ton of people voted absentee. Michigan now has same-day registration.
Here we are. A solid majority of college football fans think the season should be canceled or postponed:
New Data: #MLB's coronavirus struggles have football fans wary about the upcoming season:
— Alex M. Silverman (@AlexMSilverman) August 4, 2020
30% of college football fans believe fall sports should take place as planned. 58% say no.
32% of #NFL fans believe the 2020 season should begin as scheduled on Sept. 10. 51% say no. pic.twitter.com/qGlCqy2d8D
I assume the 30% are the veterans of the posting wars who will ghost through this world purposelessly without football. Or the Wraparound Shades While Sitting In My Car twitter people.
[After THE JUMP: we continue on as if the above does not exist, because what choice do we have]
The beginning of the end? I'll have a fuller post on this in a couple days but a seismic moment in college football as a group of Pac-12 players have more or less formed a union and threatened a boycott unless college sports radically changes. The main insight:
“I learned how this system will never change from within. Ever.”
And the other?
“The only way a labor movement can be started is with a work stoppage.”
Amongst various demands are the big ones:
IV. Economic Freedom and Equity
Guaranteed Medical Expense Coverage
- Medical insurance selected by players for sports-related medical conditions, including COVID- 19 illness, to cover six years after college athletics eligibility ends.
Name, Image, and Likeness Rights & Representation
- The freedom to secure representation, receive basic necessities from any third party, and earn money for use of our name, image, and likeness rights.
Fair Market Pay, Rights, & Freedoms
- Distribute 50% of each sport’s total conference revenue evenly among athletes in their respective sports.
The last bullet there is both unclear and often mis-framed. It is not a 50/50 revenue split but a 50/50 split of the conference distribution. (Probably?) In the Pac-12 that's about 32 million annually; USC's annual budget in 2018 was 117 million. Oregon State's was 84 million before COVID cutbacks. They're asking for between 17% and 20% of the total budget.
The unclear part is how to suss out what sport earns what when a big chunk of the conference distribution is a lump sum from a TV network. Ratings? Ad revenue?
But anyway, now there's a year where football players don't want to play nearly as much as they usually do and a bunch of angry people—angry about COVID, angry about a bunch of money earned by young black men being siphoned off by Dave Brandon types—living in a time where there's a lot of people in the streets asking for basic fairness. From Harry Lyles Jr's article on ESPN:
UCLA defensive lineman Otito Ogbonnia told ESPN's Heather Dinich, "We're extremely serious. We're really big on the big picture here. Our biggest thing is getting a seat at the table when they're discussing things that are going to affect our lives forever. We kind of feel that the majority of the time we aren't necessarily heard. A lot of people are passionate about this. This encompasses a lot of peoples' lives."
Good luck to them. Also, goodbye to Nick Rolovich:
Washington State coach Nick Rolovich told wide receiver Kassidy Woods that aligning with the Pac-12 player unity group would create "an issue" with the program, according to a recording of a phone call Saturday obtained by The Dallas Morning News.
Woods called to inform Rolovich that he was opting out of the 2020 season because he has sickle cell trait and would be at an enhanced risk amid the coronavirus pandemic. Rolovich told Woods he had no issue with the reasoning but then asked whether Woods would be part of the unity movement, a group of Pac-12 players threatening to opt out of this season if the league does not meet a set of demands. Woods said he would be supporting the movement.
"That's going to be an issue if you align with them as far as future stuff," Rolovich said, according to the Morning News. "The COVID stuff is one thing. But joining this group ... it's going to be different. If you say, 'I'm opting out 'cause of COVID and health and safety,' I'm good. But this group is going to change how things go in the future for everybody, at least at our school."
You can handwave after that but you're done. Rolovich has already released a statement directly contradicted by a recorded phone call.
If you want a deep dive on the demands—albeit one that gets the 50/50 split wrong—Extra Points has you covered. Rodger Sherman also has a good article at the Ringer.
The beginning of the end, COVID division. Three-quarters of (now FCS) Idaho does not want to play. They spoke anonymously lest the have their scholarships revoked.
The old Old German. A redditor was cleaning out his grandfather's stuff when he ran across a spectacular matchbook from the original incarnation of Old German. Part of it leads this post; here's the inside:
The German phrase at the top means "He who drinks long, lives long" per another person on Reddit.
Basketball rostering notes. Two things caught my eye. One: Michigan listed Zeb Jackson at 6'5", making him a Darius Morris-sized point guard. Two: Franz has added 15 pounds.
The Bell duality. Criticized for not catching things, but when he does:
Highest yards per catch from the slot among Big Ten WRs returning in 2020:
— PFF College (@PFF_College) August 4, 2020
Ronnie Bell, Michigan - 16.9 pic.twitter.com/YuhRXjruA8
We've made the case that the drops criticism is not actually warranted despite your feelings at the end of the Penn State game. That would bode well for Bell's 2020 if it exists.
A very slender silver lining if there is hockey. The Ivy League has cancelled fall sports, prompting projected 2021 first-rounder Matt Beniers to start looking around for a place to play. That place is apparently going to be Michigan, as Mel Pearson told Michael Spath that there was another as-yet-unannounced 2020 player they were bringing in. This would seem to confirm rumors:
Hearing lots of buzz that '02 F Matt Beniers of NTDP will switch his NCAA choice to Michigan from Harvard. He's a possible NHL 1st rounder in 2021
— Mark Divver (@MarkDivver) July 30, 2020
I am going to be crushed if this happens and there is no hockey. Years of grinder stuff and as soon as Kent Johnson and the superfriends show up, pandemic. Cumong man.
Also in hockey persons, Saturday was the first day that rising 11th graders are allowed to publicly commit under the new recruiting regime. Michigan picked up a verbal from Andon Cerbone, a 2004 forward who was the Chicago Steel's first rounder in the USHL's Futures draft. The Neutral Zone gives him 4.25 stars and ranked him the #30 US player in his birth year as of January. Sam Stern praised his "wonderful vision and hands" immediately after he was drafted.
Cerbone was invited to the NTDP evaluation camp (now cancelled); if I had to guess based on the takes I've just now assimilated I'd say he ends up just outside the NTDP forward group.
And here's a thing I was wrong about: D Chase Pietila committed to Michigan Tech. I had inferred that Pietila-related twitter activity from Mel Pearson meant he was a silent commit. Nope! That's a big get for Tech even if he's the most legacy of legacies.
Etc.: If Beniers does flip Michigan will have all three NCAA players mentioned as guys to watch in the 2021 draft in this article. Franz checks in 39th on Givony's 2021 mock draft. Chase Winovich selected as a breakout player for this (uh…) NFL season. Bill Connelly on how to adapt college football. A rare sighting: "gaslit" is used correctly. THJ (and now Trey Burke) feature in the "best offense in NBA history."
yo, you inhale too sharply and you'll get your mask up in your teeth amirite
And you think fans are hard on players now, if they get paid it will be ten times worse. And, if players get paid are teams allowed to get rid of or “cut” players who aren’t performing or who they no longer want? Only seems fair if you go to that model - pay for performance.
Players already get cut, they just dont call it that, so i don't think anyone would have a problem.
As it exists now if a player is unable to see the field or low on the depth chart he can remain on the team until he graduates. So, if someone isn’t good enough they still get a college degree to pursue other things (e.g., Phillip Paea)
Players who do not become superstars or even play meaningful minutes still contribute a lot to the team and the team's success (similar to practice squad players in the NFL or the last man off the bench in the NBA).
Just my $0.02, but my guess is that even if allowable, you wouldn't see a ton of players getting "cut". The value that these players contribute to the university by showing up to practice, being large and/or gifted athletes and representing the university positively far outstrips the marginal cost of the University providing a sponsored education to an additional student (certainly true in revenue sports, probably true for non-revenue sports as well).
Finally, you will always have the "non-contributor" issue -- the top 85 players are not going to all go to Alabama all of a sudden, unless Alabama could pay them all more than every other school. But if they are paying them more, then they also are not cutting them...
The way it is right now at Michigan, where 4 year scholarships are guaranteed, is that if you are good you play and have a shot at the NFL, and if you not good enough you can still get the free education and degree....both positives.
If you introduce payment into the game they would likely have to take away the guaranteed status of the scholarship, which could end up hurting those who are not good enough.
I reject the argument you'd have to remove the 4-year guarantee. The money would be the same to the school regardless of which person got it, and if there was some semi-uniform pay structure the money wouldn't be demonstrably different. Yes, at the edges some kids would likely be pressured to leave who didn't want to, but that happens now anyway.
If you introduce payment into the game they would likely have to take away the guaranteed status of the scholarship, which could end up hurting those who are not good enough.
Why? In almost every other free-market system and in most of the sports world (Excluding NFL and NBA -- admittedly huge omissions) contracts are fully guaranteed. I would imagine that you could guarantee the 4-5 years of scholarship / cost of attendance at that university (voidable if transferred to another university) while making any revenue sharing subject to being on the team / good standing with the university (if it were to get that progressive)
As with anything there would be some unintended consequences and stipulations. Would it be acceptable to have most of the money put into a trust that they can’t touch until the age of 40?
You’ve said this before: why would you want them to wait until 40 to get the money? Or wait at all?
And if they can profit off their likeness, nobody can control that money anyway.
Because most of them go broke after college even if they make the pros due to poor financial management.
Some do, but I wouldn’t say most, and that’s up to them. They earned it. If the money were held at all, I’d release it once they graduate or leave school, whichever comes first.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/leighsteinberg/2015/02/09/5-reasons-why-80-of-retired-nfl-players-go-broke/#20f6996a78cc
Oh I’ve read the stories. When I lived in Milwaukee, I watched Latrell Sprewell’s boat get repossessed right there on Lake Michigan. So make a couple financial responsibility classes mandatory while they attend school.
There’s also plenty of wealthy people who aren’t athletes that lose it all, and often for the very same reasons. They’re just not on our TV screens so we hear about them less often. Whether 20 or 40 it’ll still happen.
I understand your point, but a trust doesn’t sound like a very good idea. If an 18 year-old computer programmer made a bunch of money inventing things for a company, could/would/should the company put his money in a trust?
August 5th, 2020 at 12:03 PM ^
That Forbes article begins: "Sports Illustrated recently estimated that 80% of retired NFL players go broke in their first three years out of the League."
Unfortunately it doesn't have a link to the original. I'm curious about where SI got its info. That number just seems awfully high so I'd like to have more details.
I mean, lots of people go broke in this country. Something like 70% have Americans have less than $1k saved anywhere. A large chunk of people are one unexpected expenses away from insolvency.
Universities can provide a service to student athletes about financial literacy and put them in contact with financial planners who can help them manage their money. Hell, this should be made available to any student. But trying to keep dibs on how people use their money seems needlessly paternalistic, especially when you consider how badly some of these ADs have managed their money over the years.
"Most"?!? - I'm not sure that word means what you think it does
August 5th, 2020 at 10:16 AM ^
Virtually all NBA contracts are fully guaranteed. There’s some contracts for players signed in training camp whose deals are partially guaranteed but they become full guaranteed if they’re on roster on January 10. Agreed with all your points though.
Will they still get scholarships, or can we just make them pay for their skool with their earnings?
That depends, some professional sports have guaranteed contracts, some don't. Let's see what the players can negotiate for themselves.
"if they get paid it will be ten times worse." - Um, no it won't. Just look within the 5 years of this program. Ronnie Bell received hate mail last year for dropping a pass and Blake O'Neill received death threats --- DEATH THREATS -- for the debacle at the end of the MSU game. People are plenty hard on players as is.
"if players get paid are teams allowed to get rid of or “cut” players who aren’t performing or who they no longer want?" -Maybe, but I doubt you move from where the college athletics system is currently to a total free-market system. More likely, that scholarships become guaranteed for 4-5 years, athletes get NIL rights and a share of revenue (last point is possible but not likely). If they do go free market, I would be fine with them being able to "cut" players, but keep in mind that the true value of some of these elite FB / BB players for 1 year will be orders of magnitude greater than 4+ years of college tuition, so I truly doubt we would see that anytime soon
Oh no, you mean the mean-spirited, sometimes racist vitriol directed at players now would get even worse? What, are death threats toward people with some money even worse than the current amateur ones?
I still to this day don't understand why people care if the college athletes they watch get paid. It certainly would affect my feelings in any meaningful way - I was bothered when Ronnie Bell dropped that TD against PSU, but that feeling wouldn't be demonstrably different if I knew he had some revenue sharing agreement in place.
Yep. At least they’d paid to put up with all the garbage from fans.
you seem to be wrong a lot. you should look into that, it can be cured.
That Guardian article should be required reading for all the posters on here saying "95% of the players want to play"
That myth is already being dismantled, and as more and more players choose to opt-out, I'm hopeful it will be completely shattered.
Already two guys projected as first rounders have announced they're sitting out. I doubt they'll be the only ones.
Just read it. Agreed.
Of course they want to play! They're just not as stupid as coaches and media and Internet jackasses would have us believe.
I mean, do we have to explain this? I know you know, but I guess we have to explain this. Part of being an adult is putting what you need to do before what you want to do. They already undergo grueling diets to maintain their top physical shape when I'm sure on some days they'd rather plant their face into a bowl of ice cream or whatever. They're more than familiar with the concept of restraint. They're not being held prisoner by an evil liberal cult; they want to play but they know there's a killer virus out there that thrives in locker rooms.
"They want to play" appeals to the public from a perspective that pretends the very basic concept of restraint doesn't exist. Oh, they want to play. So. . . we're gonna make them? It's a shameless, insulting, morally disgusting argument.
For pairing with the wraparound shades comment:
https://twitter.com/ItsParaducks/status/1127915724129828864/photo/1
Just get rid of the monopolistic entity that is the NCAA and allow each school to pay players whatever they want. "but muh parity!!" you say? (1) parity doesn't exist (2) it's not fair to have players take the brunt of the economic cost for the sake of this "parity".
"Get rid of the NCAA" is obviously never going to happen. As if the schools are just going to voluntarily stop banding together to do things that are best done under an umbrella organization anyway.
Could happen but you'd just have a new version. The likeliest scenario to me would be P5 schools leaving the NCAA and creating their own leadership/administration structure.
This is a really stupid poll question. Wtf does "as planned" mean? There is no plan. It's a daily moving target.
That poll kinda underscores how much our perception of popular opinion is shaped by loud screamers. If you just looked at the discourse, you'd think it was 60-70% in favor of playing. But then polls show up and you realize it's only 30-35%
August 5th, 2020 at 12:04 AM ^
Seasons being canceled will be interesting as it pertains to drafts, recruitment, eligibility, and so many other things that affect the kids playing
BTW, it looks like Brian's wish-list came to pass:
https://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/2020/08/live-results-for-aug-4-primary-in-ann-arbor-washtenaw-county.html
I'm rooting for the nascent union and applaud them for taking the opportunity in this crisis. Yes, there almost certainly will be unintended consequences, but overall I'd bet the situation will improve. I suspect, however, that events will take their leverage off the table - namely, that fall 2020 college sports, particularly football, will be cancelled outright, and when it rolls around again their (legitimate) health concerns won't be as relatable, and they'll have trouble holding people together.
Comments