Good points - hope you don't get banned....
Peppers at 10, which seems low.
Good points - hope you don't get banned....
Yes, be warned! Gameboy has just started the five-year process by which chitown got banned. We'll call it BREAKING BANNED.
I hope I can be that lovable scamp Todd. I think there's nothing that could go wrong here. Kid's got promise!
He said his IDEA was terrible. If you can't open up for a criticism of ideas then this place becomes nothing more than a home for yes men and women. We become nothing more than sheeple.
I am on the side of no agents, no money transfers, and no wages. I personally don't give two craps that athletic departments are pulling in all these revenues. Revenues go up because consumers enjoy the product and are willing to pay more for it. Tamper with the product too much and revenues can go down.
Leads me to my next point, I don' t watch the NFL. I am huge football fan but hate the NFL. Few organizations exist where winning is the prime objective. Others give it lipservice but some can only do so much because they are restricted by capital. Capital is what is needed to sign those big names and win the games. Our school has some advantages but not enough to become a consistant juggernaut and not enough for others to rise. You bring in a pay scale then you might as well restrict the college games to 30 teams because the others have no chance.
Scholarships are enough PERIOD! I am sure my story is not unique but I worked three part time jobs to pay for my school while I was in school. I didn't get a FREE education because I do not have a lick of talent. The athletes get a great four year education and do not have to pay a dime for it. I am not even sure if Devin is paying for his post-grad degree.
If anything increase the allowance for food and housing. Clothing is cheap, so you won't get any sympathy there. Cars are not cheap but these kids are getting the equivalent of a YEARS salary to pay football. Also, they are working toward the opportunity of getting a life's worth of wages for one year, something that your average student doesn't get.
No money transfers! If they start getting money then college football will be no more. I question constantly how much Americans value sports. If we value it so much that we pay 18 year olds a salary on top of a free education with the potential to sign an nfl contract then I will have no problems spending my time elsewhere and I will invite anyone and everyone else to do the same.
Too many people are under the assumption that we NEED college football. We don't! I used too live to watch the NFL every sunday. I would cut out the articles and study the stats religiously. I have paid attention to that game for nearly ten years now and my Sunday afternoons are wonderful. If we are not careful then people will have no issue with enjoy their Saturdays by doing something else.
What is up with some people's reading comprehension?
Sorry sometimes I miss it.
To go with my previous post:
I am not moved by the argument that athletic programs are making a bundle while college athletes are poor. All college kids are poor. I practically ate Tuna Helper for an entire year and my treat was buying a half gallon of ice cream with syrup. If you think athletic departments make a bunch of money then try the entire academic institution. Michigan has a HUGE endowment and none of the college students are granted a stipend just because revenue increases.
I'm not a huge fan of paying players, and I completely disagree with Brian's position on agents. But I do think the players should be given a stipend for expenses beyond the training table, and they should have some small "walking around" money each month. And I also think that star players that actually do sell uniforms and benefit the university should be entitled to a cut of that money (after they graduate). But there is a difference between football players and all other students (including scholarship athletes in all other sports except basketball). Football players are responsible, collectively, for revenue increases to the school, other students are not.
I also agree and I brought up a good point in a thread (or two) yesterday that players should have the option to either sign a letter of intent for a four yr sholly or an endorsement deal and pay their own way through school. The stipulation either way is that they are student athletes and have to maintian the minimum Gpa one way or another to remain eligible. If a player signs the deal for the scholly he can still sign endorsements later. The stipulation is that the scholy already used has to be paid back and the rest of his time at said school is pay for play. These kids are provided the ultimate platforms to showcase their abilities.
In re: to your third point, you know what would be a GREAT way for currently unpaid players to make money, even no name players from SW Missouri and EW Iowa State? Throw the game for gamblers.
EDIT: Also, downvoted for the purposefully inflammatory title
Sure it grabs your attention but then it backs up the statement quite well.
I sure am going to miss college sports when everybody "fixes" it.
Enjoy the trip to Bolivia, but yeah you are right.
will be sycophants.
Seriously, I really really hate this idea. The AAU/Caliparization of college basketball has been the ruination of the sport, for me, and seeing it happen to football too is just about my worst nightmare. Calipari's entire career has been built on creating what I guess you could call a positive investment environment for agents and I don't think any amount of compliance enforcement or registration of agents will keep that from happening to football too if we head down this road.
people think that posting a dissenting opinion is ban worthy? Am I missing something here?
only missing people being dumb
To have a business relationship with an agent/agency not certified by them. That weeds out some of the creeps, although the NCAA enforcement arm is weak, so it might not work anyway.
I don't see how the rules of cheating in college athletics would not still apply:
1. Everyone gets paid
2. User a burner
3. Cash only
This fixes nothing and gives agents access. Plausible deniability isn't restricted at all, its worse because of the access.
Off day for Brian on WTKA...happens
Judging by what has taken place over the past week, this will not end well for you, even though you are right.
I for one agree with Gameboy. Kids in college getting agents? That's ridiculous. I do however think players should get more money than they currently receive.
I think one important point that is being missed is that Brian's idea sets up a regulated marketplace where agents could decide the value of contracting with college kids. It also means that a set number of agents will have to spread money over quite a few prospects. I think the payouts would be much less than people think because of the size of the market and possible risk. It would likely be too risky to pay freshmen because they are unproven and the agent could not realize a profit for at least three years.
Brian's solution, however, is the only one I have heard that gets past title 9, which is why it is the only one that I have heard that could be legal.
How is it regulated though? Are agents going to open up their books for the NCAA? Truck drivers can keep inspectors off their back with two sets of books, most of these agents are attorneys. Does this stop boosters from spending money to attract recruits? No I don't think it does, it just more than likely complicates things for the athletes. Does the NCAA magically get subpoena authoritiy, audit authority, what?
McFarlin, my have you grown.
Nice screen name tool
Judging from your avatar, however, you look like a little kid. And your pad level is turrible.
I think you should show a bit I respect an reword the title.
Regarding point #1, I don't think an agent could threaten to pull a player who is on scholarship if the sit out one year rule is still around. I don't think it would create anymore attrition than what there currently is at the moment.
...the coaches will know that if they don't play ball this time, no future players will be available from the agent.
It won't take long for pipelines to develop. You'll know it's happened, too, because the agents and players will follow the coaches from stop to stop a la Calipari.
Wouldn't that just overload programs with talent and start the whole process over again?
Most high school players will NOT HAVE AGENTS. Period.
Do I need to repeat that? MOST HIGH SCHOOL PLAYERS WILL NOT HAVE AGENTS.
Lets say that Hoke got a bad reputation for doing something some agent didn't like. (Whatever) Jabrill Peppers is a life long Michigan fan who signs with this agent who does not like Hoke. Q.E.D. Peppers is not going to go to Michigan because the agent he picked doesn't like Hoke? Doubt it.
Could it happen with an occasional blue chip recruit? Maybe.
Solution? Agents after freshman year only. Heavily persecute (I know what word i used and meant it) rule breakers.
Oh yeah, and 99.9999999999999999999999999999% of high school players would never get an agent anyway. Nobody is going to pay a 18 y.o. a $300000 advance based on their development in 5 years. Questions?
Amateurism is an obsolete concept, scam, sham (take your pick) - especially with top football and basketball programs now transformed into multimillion dollar businesses and coaches raking in millions.
The hypocrisy of it all is obscene.
And it's impossible to enforce anyway.
College football will survive the end of the NCAA's abusive and immoral monopoly and an end to its exploitation of college athletes.
these are sports, to the coaches, they are jobs, to the players, they are an opportunity. Attempting to call something that generates money a business is a misnomer. The "business" does not create a profit, the money is plowed back into the athletic department or spent on newer equipment or facilities and instead at most schools it runs in the red overall as the big revenue sports fund the rest. Yep, a few coaches make a lot of money, most do not. Yep, a few players scam the system, most do not. Your focus on the few trees causes us to miss the forest. My memory tells me something like 2% or so of college football players make a pro roster. So, stop focusing on Johnny Manziel and think about the other 98%......It is not a business to them, it is a sport they play and enjoy that provides them with an education for their efforts.
Business (definition) - commercial activity: commercial activity involving the exchange of money for goods or services
Dude, it's a business.
"A few players scam the system, most do not."
The "system" is a "scam." If a player legally takes money, he or she's not scamming anything. As for wether it's a few players or most, who the heck knows? You don't nor do I. And it's irrelevant.
"stop focusing on Johnny Manziel and think about the other 98%"
I'm focusing on the 100%.
It's insane and immoral to coerce players into complying with the sham of "amateurism" while coaches and administrators take bucket loads of money as PROFESSIONALS.
It is not a business to the fans or alumni, and if this board has taught me anything it is that Michigan football is not a business but a unique tradition to most people. GE and Domino's are businesses, nobody ever went to the University of GE and spent their days rooting for the fighting light bulbs......So Dude, whenever Dave Brandon or some coach treats it like a business I note the masses rise up and condemn them quickly!
You may not like it but burying your head in the sand isn't the right way to go about it. Big time college football is a business. Also just because a company puts profits back into the corporation and doesn't pay dividends doesn't make it less of a business.
and as the son of a fan, alumnus(x2), booster, and member of an advisory committee of an academic department, from where I sit, our tradition has increasingly become part of a deeply shameful business, and it cannot be fixed soon enough.
1. NCAA could work with the NFL and the NFL could tell agents that any shenanigans = a ban at the NFL level. Also, NCAA could develope some oversight (ha!) of their own and make it an NCAA violation to deal with dirty agents.
2. See #1 if the NFL says you can't recoup the money if the player never makes it in the pros the agents aren't going to cut of their noses to spite their face.
3. Again, if only NFL certified agents are allowed to be agents they're not going to risk their big money maker (the NFL) for a little bit of gambling money.
The funneling thing already happens... say hi Ted Ginn and Archie Collins! I guess you could try to make a rule where they couldn't sign with an agent until after the player starts classes but the funneling would still happen regardless.
It'd be in the best interest of the NFL to provide some cover for this so they don't end up with damaged goods when these guys make it to their league.
Also, I guess I don't see why no one talks about what would probably be the easiest way to do pay for play. Just let boosters legally give money to players. I mean it would have to go through Compliance somehow but I would think it would be easy enough to track. I mean they're probably going to have to withhold some of the funds because once it's legalized the IRS is going to want their share but this would legitimize a process that we already know happens and it would seem to level the playing field somewhat for dirty programs who engage in this vs. those that currently try not to.
I mean you'd have to figure out a way penalize those boosters that don't follow the rules (maybe the IRS can help with that) but even so I would have to imagine that some of those who currently do this against the rules would be happy to do it legitimately and not have to worry about getting their team an NCAA banhammer (as unlikely as that may be).
I can't wait.
Man... The Dominos Pizza Wolverines aren't even in the top 7!?
I'm sure the perqs from Domino's would have a lot of appeal to players but matched up against what Wexner has to offer...no, probably not. And the money's nothing compared to Ryan's, when he realizes he can stop wasting it in Manchester and use it where his heart is.
Besides, we're still struggling with our o-line.
Wouldn't we be the dominos pasta bowl wolverines?
Also, I prefer the Value City Buckeyes. Has a better ring to it.
...but you won't bring in the big names with the promise of a marketing job at Value City.
Wexner can do better than that.
(But now that I think about it, Limited Buckeyes really does have a nice ring to it, doesn't it?)
for Victoria's Secret Buckeyes will be great fun! Not sure the pads will be covered, though.
I was referring to individual boosters but hey why not... most AD's don't want to front the cost of paying players. So let others do it.
Archer Daniels Midland will have Iowa and Nebraska duking it out for the rights to the sponsorship. Loser has to be sponsored by Monsanto.
Sadly for Illinois, BTN forces them to accept endorsement of Haas avocados.
How could you think it would possibly be legal for the NFL to require players to deal only with agents that the NFL had "certified?' That wouldn't last ten seconds in any court of law. The NCAA would be in the same boat.
What he said would make sense if he substituted the NFLPA for the NFL.
Only if the college players were members of the NFLPA. The NFLPA agent certification process is a voluntary restriction on their own representation imposed by the players. You can't impose that restiction on someone on the other side of the table.
Why do I feel like Don King would get involved in this somehow?
So I'll respond.
1.) I have a hard time thinking this scenario is really going to happen. There are a lot of "ifs" in there and at the end of the day you're just making a slippery slope argument that currently doesn't have a ton of facts to support it.
2.) I sorta would need to know what safeguard thoughts Brian was thinking when he said it. But if it were me I would attempt to work with the NFL so only NFL Approved agents are allowed. Doesn't seem as if it would be that difficult to do. It would not prevent shady agents from sneaking around though... but I again don't really see this as a very strong argument.
3.) This seems to be another claim with little evidence to support it. Why do you think this would happen? Is point shaving rampent in the pros where people can easily hide the extra income? Is there any proof that this would happen? I don't really see it anywhere.
Not really, history shows us that most of the real enforcement for scandals comes from government criminal prosecutions where there is an opportunity to provide witnesses with immunity and compel them to tell the truth about what happened in order not to forfeit that immunity. The Fab 5, PSU and Sandusky, SMU back in the death penalty days, OSU and Tressel, all of these were discovered because of the criminal prosecution in the background. Since the NCAA has no subpoena power, it can only investigate with a wet noodle and ask the member schools to tell the truth. If, however, you were to criminalize the behavior of taking money or pay for play, then you could enforce it as much as any other criminal laws are enforced. And you could criminalize agent behavior or any other behavior you want to stop.
Not saying this is the best way, but the throw your hands up and declare any regulations or rules impossible to enforce is not the truth. We may not have the will to enforce the rules, but there are ways!
Because all of these shenanigans happen in minor league baseball, right? Or minor league hockey?
As MEZman points out, most everything would be eliminated simply by NFL certification. The league and the players union have no interest in completely slimy individuals representing NFL players.
Besides, it isn't like there would be a ton of agents putting a ton of money in 18 year old kids. How many sure fire recruits bust? Hell, how many on Mel Kiper's big board before a season fall drastically in the draft? Agents aren't going to be handing out money unless they're very comfortable that they're going to get it back. We're talking maybe 100 players at any given time, and we're probably talking in the range of a few thousand dollars at most. Isn't allowing that better than having to regulate and suspend kids for taking a few hundred dollars from an agent or being flown out to a camp to work with some personal coach?
Again, there is no collective bargaining in NCAA. Players can sign whoever they want. The top players will sign with NFL agents, but there will Bea ton of shady characters jumping in on bordeline players.
I totally agree with you on all points. I really don't think the NCAA has the ability to actually enforce the proper handling of players by the agents. Outside governing bodies ie. Congress need to have a more active role in making sure that players are treated fairly and that the system remains pure. If Congress enacts real laws, people will be less likely to break them.
I'm not going to blast you too much, but I do disagree with you, and that doesn't necessarily mean I agree with Brian.
Point 1: 'Agents gonna agent.' However, do you really think that head coaches, who tend to be both strong-willed and mostly ego-maniacal are going to listen to what some whiny agent and player have to say over playing time, or getting the ball, or whatever? How big of a problem would this really be? I think most coaches would tell them to go ahead and transfer, or quit, or whatever they want to do. I don't buy "Agents are going to whine on behalf of whiny players, therefore complete AD takeover by agents." At the end of the day, the school still holds all of the cards under this model because they're not paying the players, the agents are. If they don't play on the big stage because they're holding out, they won't have anything to sell.
Point 2: I'm not sure I get number two, and I also didn't hear Brian on WTKA so maybe that's why. It really seems like a precursor to set up point 3. There probably won't be unions and I don't see what that has to do with anything, since they're not technically being paid to play football.
Point 3: The presence of agents does not equal gambling. I'm not even really following the jump here. Gambling will still be illegal and against the rules. Throwing games will still be against the rules and probably will get you investigated by a federal agency. Killing a bunch of hookers will still be illegal. Agents paying players will not change that. In fact, some transparency would probably combat whatever problem currently exists.
Finally, I'm not saying agents are generally upstanding people, but I don't follow that introducing agents for future value, selling likeness, self-promotion, endorsements, etc. will suddenly turn college football into a seedy underworld. In fact, I think it's more of a seedy underworld right now than we would like to admit. Currently, ADs, media entities, video game manufacturers, the NCAA, etc. all dance around giant piles of money, while some kids who earned them that money struggle to get by. To me, that's a far more conducive environment to shady activity.
I'm only going to respond to Point 1. And it is a really simple response.
That man makes the Yankees and Red Sox dance like his bitches. He will not have a problem with 99.9% of college head coaches.
Evidence? I'm not really following you there...
Scott Boras doesn't represent a single Yankee. He used to represent Cano and Rodriguez, who have since parted ways with him. He represents three Red Sox (Bogaerts, Drew and Ellsbury). How exactly is he making the Yankees dance?
EDIT: I should add, or the Red Sox for that matter. He negotiates contracts with teams, usually in a hardball fashion. Boras isn't negotiating a contract with a coach or AD. I just don't really see why they would care? If the implication here is that top talent, with Boras-style agents will only play for teams that let them puppeteer the AD and coach then so be it. Even with talent, I doubt that those will be very good teams.
Scott Boras wouldn't have been my choice of example. I'd go with John Calapari and William Wesley.
Holy Mr. Literal. If agents, like Boras, can get professional organizations to give out 10 year, $200 million contracts, they won't have any issue making CFB head coaches do what they want.
I wasn't making the point to be a dick, but you're the one who brought it up and have yet to clarify. I don't understand how Scott Boras "makes teams dance." And I'm being sincere. I just don't see how a guy who gets teams to over pay for players equates to a destruction of the competitiveness and merit of them of playing their role on the team.
Boras represented Teixiera when he signed for the Yankees, which is really the only point in time that matters for an agent-player relationship.
I have no opinion to express about agents, college football or anything else to do with this thread.
That is a point worth noting. He gets big contracts and he does his job well. I just don't get (and you're not arguing or implying this) what that has to do with making college football coaches succumb to the wishes of a player or agent. I feel like the OP is pulling an office space and "jumping to conclusions." I'm not even saying he or she is wrong in that conclusion, just that I don't see a very strong argument here.
Of agents but also of the current system. Strong regulation of agents would be needed. I think you could get around the legal problems by having the players consent to the rules as part of the scholarship agreement.
Regarding the NCAA. It is always suspect when a powerful organization assures you that you don't need representation as an individual. It's kind if like the police, IRS, or an insurance company telling a person they don't need a lawyer.
"Regarding the NCAA. It is always suspect when a powerful organization assures you that you don't need representation as an individual. It's kind if like the police, IRS, or an insurance company telling a person they don't need a lawyer."
I don't know what is suspect about it. I don't have a lawyer and don't need one. The IRS agrees with me.
Allowing kids to sign endorsement deals. It's clear the current system does not work and is not fair to the kids so what is the solution? There are so many competing interests, including Title 9 that all systems have draw backs.
I don't know if Brian was trying to be contrarian or just didn't think this one out, but yeah, adding agents into the mix would be a disaster.
others not so much. There is no reason the NCAA couldn't regulate agents. They could require them to be accredited by the NFL, for example. As you said, you're not a lawyer, and it's possible you don't know what you're talking about here. Of course athletes in every other varsity sport could hire agents too. They would need to make similar requirements for them as well,. While the students would be legally free to sign whatever contracts they want, they could also do that now. In either case they need to be careful about jeopardizing their eligibility.
I think your gambling concern is completely backwards. You think registered agents are going to bribe players to shave points under the cover of a paper trail? And players are just going to start accepting those bribes? Players are exposed to all sorts of shady characters as it is. Many could get money and favors if they wanted them, as we know some do. By taking money now, they are putting themselves at risk of blackmail. It would be easy to threaten their eligibility by going public. Manziel has to know he wouldn't be playing if that autograph dealer spoke to the NCAA.
You are advocating that players can sign endorsement contracts, but you would bar them from using an agent to negotiate those contracts. That's going to lead to some one-sided deals. Really, players are expected to do a decent job of negotiating their own contracts?
I agree there are pitfalls in letting players hire agents. I would suggest that if you are going to create a thread for the purpose of calling out Brian, or anyone else here, on a topic, that you should do a helluva lot better job than this. Maybe just raise some questions next time, instead of operating under the assumption that you are so much smarter than he.
Your points are valid concerns and the ability to mitigate these concerns is debatable. I suspect the NCAA would offer the same concerns as a reason to ban agents. I do wonder if slimy agents are the real concern of the NCAA however. The bigger problem for the NCAA may be if the agents started to do their job as an agent.
If the agent is representing the player they may start to question the terms of the scholarship offer and start to negotiate. Some areas to target would include
I suppose the NCAA and schools could refuse to negotiate but once the top 250 players have an agent that stance could become more difficult.
I've been opposed to pretty much all the "fix college sports" ideas that have been floated, but I'm board with every bit of this if, instead of through individual agents, the players could negotiate these issues collectively.
In theory I agree; in practice I have a hard time imagining that all BCS conference schools (much less all soon-to-be-misnamed FBS or all Division I) to agree on enough to have a unified position for players to bargain against. Also, it is unlikely that NCAA/BCS schools will agree to a method of determining the official bargaining position that would allow their interests vis-a-vis other schools to be harmed.
Scholarship issuance and transfer regulations are exactly the kinds ot things the NCAA regulates. If there's anything that could be successfully negotiated collectively, I'd think it would be this. Transfers, in particular would be pretty much impossible to negotiate school-by-school.
A very fair point, although I think there will be much more consternation on rights to athletes' likeness. Also, I think some of the scholarship issues will be harder than others (medical hardship probably will not be that big of a deal, guaranteed scholarships may very well be).
Also, I think you are potentially overlooking the difficulty that 30-32 professional sports teams (who don't all have regents or donors/boosters, although some have other shareholders) in line while negotiating with players unions. Remember how the Indiana States of the world blocked an increase in scholarship stipend (if I recall correctly)? Likeness and multi-year scholarships likely have a much bigger financial and competitive impact. Overgeneralizing, for competitive reasons would SEC schools agree to four-year guaranteed scholarships if they could not have those scholarships back to count for the 85 scholly limit?
Then again, maybe the schools would surprise me.
Multi-year scholarships might actually be to the advantage of the smaller schools, since they don't oversign and their players don't leave early as often. Think how it would work in basketball if schools were blowing three or four years of scholarship every time they signed a one-and-done.
Likenesses are the odd man out on this list, for me, and it's also the item I care least about. I don't find the compensation arguments all that compelling but athletes need to have more control over their circumstances, and less risk.
I figured it would be the Bamas/Ole Missed of the world that would be against four year scholarships--not as a financial issue but as a competitive issue (cut players that didn't pan out but still wanted to be on the team in favor of blue chip recruits).
We are on the same page that likeness is a big issue. The schools would likely at least want to have joint rights--can you imagine A&M needing to get Johnny Manziel's approval (perhaps in exchange for money) to use his likeness?
But maybe the multi-year scholarships could be used to toss a bone to the smaller schools in exchange for agreement to an increase in stipend?
(Sorry for misreading--somehow I got your Indiana State point upside down and thought you were saying the small schools would be against the multi-year deals.)
By the second time I mentioned multi-year scholarships I accurately conveyed what I meant...
You are correct that multi-year scholarships are an example of something that some schools might give to others if they are negotiating amongst themselves, but if players are going to make a big ask (or really much of any real ask), it will be hard to provide something to the schools that everybody will be willing to accept and to create a win-win amongst the schools. If there are likely to be winners and losers on the school side, the schools will make sure that consensus or near consensus is required to ratify an agreement with the students. Because schools have so much trouble agreeing amongst themselves when they are the only ones at the table, I imagine consensus on an offer from the students will be daunting.
Sometimes another body at the bargaining table is just what you need to break an impasse.
I think it's all doable if there's the will to get a deal done, and it's possible that even a weak threat from the players might be the impetus to get it done.
Who knows? I do think it's more likely with the players than without them.
That sounds pretty much what the APU is asking for. I think the NCAA is already moving in that direction and the O'Bannon lawsuit is taking care of the last point. I don't think hiring individual agents is the best way to effect those kind of changes. Either a union or even the threat of one could be more effective. There's also the class-action lawsuit path.
and complaining about playing time and this and that. They're called "parents". Or in the SEC, it's usually some "Uncle" so-and-so.
It's America. If you want the advice of a professional, you should be able to seek it out anytime you want it.
It seems simple to me. Let the NFL create a farm system and let the kids choose which path they prefer.
There is a simple mechanism to enforce whatever boilerplate the NCAA would like. They can say contracts like this are fine, contracts like this will cost you your eligibility. Like they do now, except they say no contracts are fine.
Rather than giving agents more power, allowing them in a regulated capacity would actually give the NCAA more leverage than they have right now, because they could always decertify someone who isn't acting according to their standards.
The number of agents with current NFL/NBA clients that would risk their business to shave points is zero.
If you are having high school seniors enter into contracts with agents wouldn't parents need to be involved? Most high school juniors (when recruiting really picks up) are not of legal age. So what measures would be available to protect underage kids and or uninformed parents from business savy agents.
This isn't an issue in baseball or hockey. Why does everyone assume that agents are scum? Fly by night dudes with no clientele are one thing but guys with established businesses are in a situation where their reputation is almost literally the only thing they sell. Again, if the NCAA maintains a list of approved agents they're going to stay on that list at all costs.
In baseball and hockey though the contracts are regulated by either MLB, or NHL (Canadian Junior leagues also monitor junior contracts). If the NCAA had no collective bargining with the players than their would be no checks and balance like MLBPA or NHLPA has over underage signings.
for point 1, I think some restrictions could help prevent that, or at worst, greatly lessen that practice. Allowing that from HS is a bad idea but maybe after they sign, they can find an agent.
for point 3, I don't see the risk increasing because gambling is gambling. There is always the of that in any sport. players are still playing for the NFL. I don't foresee college players throwing games when it could jeopardize your shot in the pros.
1. As a prep basketball coach who has sent multiple D1 prospects on from my teams, I promise you that the idea that agents 'control the system' is absurd. They may be part of it, but they don't control it in any way. Your argument about coaches giving playing time to a kid because the agent will otherwise steer away other kids holds no water. Why would a coach even want more kids from an agent who sent him crap in the first place, and then bullied him over it? You're living in a fantasy conspiracy world.
2. I disagree with both Brian and you here. Fronting salaries is a shady practice? There's about 400,000 professions in the world that front salaries all the time. Let the agents and the talent do business. What they agree to, they agree to. Who are you to make rules - the same rules - for every kid in the sport, some of whom come from enormously privileged backgrounds, some of whom come from the poorest countries on Earth?
3. A) You're equating money and force. These are in no way the same. Threatening not to hire someone is not the same as threatening to shoot them. B) This could be happening already in any sport where agents are involved. Sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't, but it doesn't happen because agents are involved.
The best way forward is to allow the talent to enter into any trade agreements they want.
I downvoted the thread precisely because the criticisms of Brian were overheated and implausible. Thanks, MT, for taking the time to explain some of this to the OP.
I don't disagree with the premise here, and you make strong points. I don't necessarily think they are any more valid than Brian's, though, because they equate to basically the status-quo, which we've all seen doesn't really address the underlying failings of college sports.
I do think the gambling/abuse issue already exists - kids get busted on a semi-consistent basis shaving points or otherwise being influenced by outside parties to affect the outcome of a game. That's more of a human nature issue, and one that is difficult to remove in any circumstance. And to counter that, I'd argue that agents who have a reputation for pushing kids to blow games are going to lose clients for that very reason - competitive kids don't want to be told by some old guy how to play the game. College coaches won't recruit them because they'll be afraid that the agent will have influence, and that will cut down on the available pool of players for those types of agents. It may be a bit naive, but the market should clear itself out so that, for the most part, games are played competitively.
The problem with "paying players", at least to me, has more to do with figuring out where the money will come from and how it will be dispensed. Some schools can afford to set aside accounts for certain student athletes, but I dobut most ADs can pay for every scholarship sport. So then you are basically just paying football, basketball, and maybe hockey/baseball/other revenue-positive sport. If you just pay them, you are going to have a class warfare-type situation between the revenue and non-revenue sports, and I can only imagine that will be a PR nightmare for schools. Pay everyone, and you'll probably bankrupt some athletic departments. And how do you figure out what to pay the 3rd-string rower on the women's crew team? And since many of these sports have more fluid membership, do you pay out when the athlete graduates, stops playing, etc.?
It's a tough situation, one that probably won't be remedied without lots of consternation and unintentional destruction. Personally, I think the big AQ conferences will create a competing organization where they can do what they want, and everyone else will follow the amateur model. It will resemble the minor leagues in baseball, and I'm guessing mid-level programs like your ASU's, MSU's, Arkansas's, etc. will really struggle.
This is the part where Rob Pelinka reveals himself to the board and enlightens us from an agent's perspective.
I've always disagreed with Brian about paying players re: agents. And you make interesting points. But there was no need to flamebait Brian, so I changed my vote to a down vote.
Do people seriously think the OP is going to be banned for this thread title? Or did he change it from something else?
What is the new imperative, from which we need to protect players? Are players being abused or mistreated in some new way(s) from past generations?
I don't think so. An athletic scholarship to Michigan has never been worth so much as it is now. Michigan athletes have never had such high quality academic facilities as they do now. On and off the field, they have never been treated so well .
So what is the problem? Some sportswriters don't like the fact that athletic department budgets are so big, and/or coaches' salaries are so large; with all of the money floating around, the writers have tried to gin up a system of payments to the players. Tax the rich! We are the 99%!
Best comment by far in this thread was the one above that declared that the author sure was going to miss college football when the critics "fixed" it.
is that a sizeable percentage of football and basketball players have no real interest in obtaining a college degree nor in the educational process that leads to it. They are in school solely to prepare themselves for a hoped-for career in the NFL or NBA, and playing college ball is the only feasible means to achieve that often illusory goal. Grade-fixing and other academic fraud strikes at the heart of what education is (for athletes and non-athletes alike), and the various financial shenanigans that have gone on forever rarely involve college athletes who are carrying out their studies with honest intent, since students who value their educational opportunities and their eventual degree are normally disinclined to jeopardize their situation. High school recruits who are seriously evaluating schools for their educational offerings are far less vulnerable to under-the-table inducements from boosters to attend particular schools.
This isn't a new problem; college players have been taking money and have been taking easy or outright fake courses for the better part of a century, and I don't think it's possible to eliminate it entirely. Brian's proposal will simply exacerbate the problem, since it will provide even greater incentive for kids who only care about making money to "attend" college as a very temporary way station on their path to the professional leagues.
If the NFL and the NBA had minor leagues equal in extent to the systems that MLB and the NHL have maintained for many decades, there would be an alternative for physically talented kids to pursue their love for football or basketball without having to go through the charade of pretending to be college students.
The notion that Brian is going to ban me for this opinion is stupid.
I'll say it again because it is so important; if we are using collegiate football players as part of a huge profit-making enterprise, we should just stop that, rather than figuring out an acceptable "cut" for the players out of any such profits.
I am completely in agreement with you. I just don't think it's easy to demonetize the system. It's too big for it's own good.
I don't really like Brian's agent idea either -- I just think the simplest solution would be to let a player make money on the market. Sign an endorsement deal or whatever. You get around Title 9 issues.
This way the 1% or so that are undervalued relative to their scholarships get more. Everyone else has a chance to....if you don't get it, too bad at that point.
I think the argument that teams aren't tied to players is a little bit ignorant to be honest. In regards to jerseys for example, I recall a certain poster a couple of days ago saying something to the effect of "Oh how do you know that my number 16 jersey purchased between 2009-2012 was because of Denard...could have been because of Arrington or Navarre". Well just ignoring at how big of an insult that is towards most people's intelligence, Jay Bilas had a little fun with the shop NCAA Store a few weeks ago. Type in Johnny Manziel and you get a #2 TAMU jersey. He did that for a lot of players.
Like I said, I just don't think you can get money out of the system. Too many third parties from merchandisers to networks stand to lose a large sum of money.
"I just think the simplest solution would be to let a player make money on the market. Sign an endorsement deal or whatever. You get around Title 9 issues."
I agree, with the added proviso that, if you make money on the market, you can't play NCAA sports. That way, those who are interested in the money can pursue the money, and those who are in it for the education and character-building, with maybe an outside shot at the pros, can still play college sports without worrying if their teammates are only playing at the school because boosters bought them with phony "endorsement deals."
It reall is a win-win.
Don't we already have that system, at least in a small way? The age limit in the CFL is only 19, the quality of play isn't all that bad, there's decent crowds and fan interest. Why don't we see players go that route?
My suspicion is that it's because the market value of a 19-year-old foorball player just isn't all that high. If it weren't for the connection to colleges and the allegiance people feel toward a school, college sports would have the same fan support, and revenue stream, of minor and developmental leagues in other sports, or the U23 soccer teams in Europe.
I'm all for setting up an alternative for those kids that don't come to play school, but I don't think it will be financially viable unless the professional league puts up funds for it. And the only way I see that happening is if the colleges start enforcing their academic regulations so that the NFL has no alternative but to find some other way to develop players with no interest in the academic side of things.
Well that completely defeats the purpose of my proposal. And why do I care about what reasons my teammates have for coming here? As long as they come out and take care of business their reasons for being there aren't important to me.
Look college sports has become big money. A certain group of people want to be apart of the money machine. You have two options: (1) demonitize the game or (2) let them be apart of it or (3) bury your head in the sand.
People like you and Yeoman want to demonize the players and shoot down any reasonable proposal they bring to the table (oh you want an endorsement, not scholarship for you, can't play NCAA sports) but you fail to bring any of that same vitrol to those administrators, presidents and business executives who made it into the problem it is nowadays. Without them allowing billions to be poured into the sport, the players wouldn't look around and say "Holy shit I'm filling the stands".
Look you can say you cheer for Michigan and maybe that's true but this site tends to self-select itself to 'super fans' who would embrace dog shit if it were Maize and Blue. The average fan cheers for good teams. No one was packing Crisler when we were awful. Most people cheer when the team is good -- it's just sports fandom for a majority of people. When is a team good? When it has good coaching sure, but also when it has talented players.
I think this idea of the free market is a fair compromise. You think you're worth more? Okay, if Pepsi wants to pay you to sip some Gatorade, fine. Otherwise, enjoy your scholarship. You had a chance and no one thought you were worth it. Really, who gets hurt? This team cohesiveness argument is just a red-herring scare tactic. This shady stuff already goes on and to pretend that it doesn't is naive. We're self-interested. Universities use the teams as publicity, players use the school for a free ride and a chance at the pros. Greed is good, let's stop pretending like it's not.
Who really got hurt when Manziel signed autographs? His teammates were pissed that he put the season is jeopardy sure but I really doubt someone is that upset and cannot believe the audacity of him for signing footballs. And if they were, tough shit, that's the world. People are always going to be better and more popular than you.
People like you and Yeoman want to demonize the players and shoot down any reasonable proposal they bring to the table
I'm on record elsewhere on the thread supporting pretty much the whole APU program--I take it you think their proposals are unreasonable?
"Tough shit, that's the world" is a pretty feeble argument wherever it's deployed. It's just as easily deployed at the players, isn't it?
I've said elsewhere that I'm not interested in watching a sport that's a contest between what are essentially corporate-sponsored teams, and it's pretty clear to me that's where your proposal would go. I'd rather have the schools pay the players directly than have the money coming directly from boosters. I'd much rather not have either one, and have some sort of alternative program available for those players that aren't interested in school and want to test their market value as athletes.
You disagree; that's fine. I'm not sure why what I'm saying is hard to understand, or why you think it demonizes the players.
Anyway, I need to get out of here. I've got a demonitized D-III football game to tailgate.
I don't know what you care about why your teammates are playing. You don't play for Michigan.
You set up a false dilemma. I am not stuck with your three choices. I can choose to reform the existing system.
I had no idea that I want to demonize the players, and still don't. know why I want to do that. Either I know what I want to do, or you know better than me what I want to do. But, if you are telling me what I want to do, please tell me why I want to do it. Otherwise, you just look silly.
College sports is big money. Mostly, big money losses. Sure, some football and basketball programs make money, but solutions to problems have to look at all sports and all teams that will be effected. Allowing boosters to buy players through "endorsement payments" doesn't strike me as a solution that fits the problem.
Players do not, by and large, look around and say "Holy shit, I'm filling the stands." Mostly, they say (based on what people write from the inside of the sport and from the outside), "I am glad I chose to play for this team. My teammates and I have a lot of support from our fans." They are aware of how much money is flowing into some programs, and they'd sure, to a player, like to have a few more dollars in their pocket (like all the rest of us), but, by and large, they realize why that's not possible.
The whole "look you can say you cheer for Michigan and maybe that's true but..." digression seems like a giant red herring, and is silly to boot. Maybe it is true that I cheer for Michigan? Maybe you are an alien. Random "maybe" statements get us nowhere.
The solution to the prblem of all the money flowing into college sports isn't to increase corruption by allowing players to be openly bought by boosters (aka "let the players get whatever they can from endorsements"). The solution involves (1) university presidents retaking control of their athletic departments, and re-routing the money going into the ludicrous facilities arms race into more player-oriented expenditureslike more reasonable allowances for all players, and (2) promoting alternatives to the NCAA as the "minor leagues" for sports that don't have a ML alternative to college.
If we allow college players to get paid by outsiders, then the good ones become merely meat for your market. The boosters at the various schools will compete to see who can offer the most in "endorsements" for the elite talent. In the meantime, the vast, vast majority of the players get nothing except the knowledge that their elite teammates aren't really on the same team. I'd rather see a solution that benefits more than the two or three percent of college money-sport athletes that would be able to participate in yor meat market.
It will be awfully, tremendously, monumentally hard to de-emphasize money in college football. The competitive instincts of all of the biggest programs makes them think they need to constantly develop new revenues and otherwise monetize the football brand platform.
John U. Bacon is right; this is a nationwide fight for the soul of college football.
by the idea of allowing pay-for-play, something by the way, that was unilaterally rejected the other day by two national organizations of athletic directors, who, at the same time acknowledged they are currently working on recommendations to reform NCAA governance and enforcement, you ought to let history be your guide.
The NCAA was initially formed to deal with safety and gambling issues after two White House conferences in the early 1900s prompted universities and colleges to organize a body they controlled which would handle aspects of sports regulation they were incapable of addressing themselves, either separately or as conferences because of perception issues and outright conflict of interest.
During the Jim Crow period, schools could dictate whether they would play each other based on nothing more than journalistic investigation. If a school discovered through a news article that a team had black players, they would cancel contests or threaten to, unless the offending player was removed. We know this happened at Michigan in a game between the Wolverines and Georgia Tech. It happened elsewhere as well, including a game between Syracuse and incoming Big Ten member, Maryland.
Gambling ruined the reputation of the NIT basketball tournament and made it a second-class enterprise, when it once topped the NCAA tournament in terms of popularity and prestige. Point-shaving in a widespread conspiracy involving some more than 30 teams including onetime NIT champion, CCNY, forever blackened that program which took the brunt of the backlash from that mid-40's scandal.
NCAA enforcement has always tightened in the face of new threats to the detriment of the game in the form of gambling and recruitment, which can be so easily influenced and corrupt the integrity of any game. That is why the amateur code and no pay-for-play concept has ever been considered.
Now, that the popularity of college sports has been altered by the kind of media exposure which transformed the fortune of the NFL, which has always benefitted from having an unfunded minor league system provided by college teams to acquire already developed talent, there are calls for giving players money or allowing them to earn while in school, which they are pretty much prohibited from doing now.
The fact is, the spiral of money being earned from college football and basketball by the BCS schools has warped the perception of how college athletes are regulated wnat their services provide the schools they represent outside their scholarship.
There are many ways to reform the current system and augment scholarship provisions so that players are compensated by at least acknolwedging what we all know is true, they work for the schools to produce winning teams, and their scholastic endeavors are treated by their coaches as a distraction to their chief mission, which is winning games and championships.
Now, every school is diffferent. Every school has a different competitive outlook for their program, and see sports programming and the student-athlete identify in a different way.
But, even if resources, sports-programming agendas and costs are different competitively at each school, they all operate under the same rules that guide their membership. So, they are all complicit in making the reforms necessary to benefit all, whether this means paying small stipends to athletes in revenue sports or relaxing the standards for graduation and eligibility over the period in which athletes are under scholarship on campus.
It doesn't mean you have to do it one way. It means you ought to have a range of options that enables what is real and being allowed under the wink and nod of practice rules, for instance, that seem more an exhaustion of going through the motions of tedious paperwork and redundant procedure, to permitting certain athletes to obtain a share of whatever profit the school, conference and NCAA earns from the sale of merchandise tied to player numbers and/or their image and likeness. This could be achieved in any number of ways.
As for agents and the NFL, both should have some fiduciary responsibility for their role in the system, because they are major players who benefit from the programs runs by NCAA schools.
Now, this could mean that the NFL and the NBA certifies all agents, who pay the leagues for pro licensing and are subject to testing. In turn, the NCAA would get money from the pro leagues for agent registration and the leagues would bear some responsibility in connection with the agents for how athletes are treated and handled while their college eligibility is in effect. This money would be paid to athletes on a pro-rated basis after they established a representation agreement with a certain player. Money could be held, paid out in proportion to future earnings or funded as part of a school scholarship.
The methodology of payment as well as regulation would accomplish as much. And why not register boosters and regulate costs through the kind of donations which are now simply directed as endowments or legacy contributions for building projects. Why is this impossible?
Pro baseball and hockey don't have the same problems with athletes that the other sports do, and I don't hear too much griping about whether players who attend college briefly and then go pro, such as Derek Jeter, Drew Henson or any hockey player who was allowed to continue in school while their professional rights were held by a certain team for a certain period, because baseball and hockey created systems which deal with these issues.
It's only guilt over money which fuels the current debate. Things are no different today than they have been in the past, except there are more zeros after the dollar sign in the bottom line. Money changes everything. So deal with it.
"It's only guilt over money which fuels the current debate. Things are no different today than they have been in the past, except there are more zeros after the dollar sign in the bottom line. Money changes everything. So deal with it."
This emphasis on money, and the imperative for football to support a larger enterprise is pretty much exactly what Don Canham and Bo Schembechler warned the Senate about, during the Ford Administration.
I think athletes should have the same free market rights a student on an IT scholly would have.
I agree. The IT scholly student doesn't play NCAA sports, and neither should the athlete. The athlete student should be able to play outside the school without jeapordizing that athlete's academic scholarship. In fact, the athlete may do so right now.