ESPN Article on Jim Delany's comments at O'Bannon Trail
I had to share this because I literally laughed out loud. Delany starts rambling about how there is no arose Bowl if you pay players. Which made no sense.
Then he says the idea of paying players goes against the entire college experience and he couldn't see league members agreeing to it. If some did, he said, they likely would be kicked out of the conference because the move would create an imbalance among schools that could not be resolved.
That was paragraph number two. I stopped reading to share after that because it makes NO sense. Delany's is one of those guys who talks really confident and with scare scenarios but has no clue what he's actually saying. But he's Jim Delany and he sounds so confident that you almost believe him until you actually listen to what he said.
Think about that paragraph, then think about which teams in the B1G can afford to pay players. Do you REALLY think Michigan and Ohio State are ever going to be voted out of the league? Hell no. You take e top half of the schools in the B1G in terms of profit and revenue for the league and kick them out and you're left with a better version of the MAC.
I'm not for paying players...but THIS is the man leading our conference.
His testimony was being live-tweeted all day, and here's the one where I think Emmert probably crapped himself because it definitely doesn't help the NCAA out here:
Delany again say too much time spent on sports: "Yes, too much athletics for too many young people produces strained young bodies. "
— Mark Schlabach (@Mark_Schlabach) June 20, 2014
hell, he might not actually care if the NCAA wins. He already has talked about enhancing players stipends, as well as doing away with the NCAA all together.
Delany is smart and knows what he's doing. His testimony was pretty helpful to the plantiffs -- and he was the NCAA's witness. He spoke his mind, and if its bad for the NCAA, then so be it.
They should be paid SAG/AFTRA scale on TV appearances at the very least. Most of all, "student-athletes" should be allowed to earn whatever anyone wants to pay them on the free market, whether it's a product endorsement or a booster who wants to help out.
Imagine Denard Robinson having the right to sign a shoe contract as a junior, for example. Or imagine Nik Stauskas representing one of the larger car dealerships locally. And imagine legal "golden handshakes" that would allow players to more fully enjoy their time at Michigan or any other school.
Wilken: "So where does the rest of it go. We're up to about $600 million here. I count about $300 million more." NCAA atty: "I don't know."
— Andy Staples (@Andy_Staples) June 20, 2014after you fill your first five swimming pools with gold coins, it's really hard to keep track of pools 6-10. Where did they go? "I dunno man. I've been hanging out in pool 3 all day"
Roy Roger'd and Dale Evans'd...
Let athletes profit off of their numbers but keep the money locked away until after they graduate, increase housing stipends for off campus housing. I disagree with the NFLization of college football. The players at Michigan already get 50K off of tuition and thousands more for room and board and food. Also there's only so many schools that could afford this. Almost all FBS schools are deep in the red already.
Because they're young and stupid and will DEFINITELY spend it all on DRUGS.
And it doesn't matter. All the top recruits are going to the top tier schools already, and those schools could all free up the money in their budgets if they wanted to, but that's not where this money would necessarily be coming from. Athletes could be paid by taking a cut of media revenues, apparel sales, autograph signings, etc. the NCAA just needs to stop telling kids they're inelegible if they take it.
I really hate the "but they already get..." argument. Who cares what they already get? Just because you're currently getting something, doesn't mean you can't and shouldn't get more.
And there's no reason to keep the money locked away. Regular college kids are able to earn a paycheck and get access to that money right away. Athletes profitting off their own name/image/likeness are no different. The NCAA/Conference/School has no business telling a student what they can/cannot do with money earned from that person's likeness.
Absolutely true. Unless the players want to play NCAA-sanctioned sports, that is. No one is forcing these kids to agree to the NCAA stipulations for eligibility. Let them get what they can in the free market. If the deal the NCAA offers is the best one for them, they should take it. If not, they should pass on the NCAA and take the better non-NCAA deal. That's how markets work.
I'm not so good at the lawyerin' but it seems like Delany and Emmert are doing a better job helping the case against the NCAA...
Very interesting that the strategy by the NCAA is to crush the former employees who tried to nip these lawsuits in the bud.
— Andy Staples (@Andy_Staples) June 20, 2014
Delany says he doesn't think Big Ten schools would pay for NILs. Might want to ask 51 percent BTN owner Fox about that first.
— Andy Staples (@Andy_Staples) June 20, 2014
Hausfeld shows speech where Delany said "there is monetization of athletes, and there has been for six decades."
— Andy Staples (@Andy_Staples) June 20, 2014
Delany is being honest about his views. And it's not helping the NCAA.
— Andy Staples (@Andy_Staples) June 20, 2014
Material from Emmert's 2011 NCAA presidential retreat now being placed into evidence.
— Andy Staples (@Andy_Staples) June 20, 2014
From retreat materials: "The data would indicate that there is already significant disparity in competition."
— Andy Staples (@Andy_Staples) June 20, 2014
And these are just the tip of an iceberg of money quotes...
If Northwestern was forced to pay players as part of a decision by the NLRB, and no other school did so, couldn't that put Northwestern on a different plane? Think about it, every other school is a public institution and as such possibly might require state government permission to fundamentally alter how athletes are treated and compensated.
Let us consider the possibility that no public B1G schools except for those in Michigan, PA, and IN were allowed to pay players. Or, put another way, Michigan, MSU, PSU, IU, Purdue, and Northwestern (NLRB decsion) were allowed to become semi-pro teams while the other eight schools were not allowed to be so. Do you really think the B1G would allow six semi-pro teams to remain? Not at all, in fact those semi-pro teams might form a semi-pro league which also included WMU, Ball St, ND, and CMU.
If we momentarily put our emotions aside, we might be able to understand what that person is trying to say.
One minute I think I'd side with the NCAA because heck, why do the athletes need more?...they get so much already. Another minute I wonder, why do coaches and administration positions need so much and give nothing to athletes? Ultimately, I don't see why people like Delaney and Emmert think everything would disappear if they paid players. Here's my question. Why does Emmert need to make $1.7 million, Delaney need to make $1.8 million, Hoke need to make $4.6 million etc.? It seems like these salaries could be cut significantly across the board and still give a little peice to the players. How do guys like Emmert and Delaney even say that with a straight face?
So if we start paying players and they don't perform then do they get cut off the team. In the NFL you'll be out of a job if you don't perform. As a college coach you'll be out of a job if you don't perform. That might get a little hairy.
In the SEC maybe. The Big Ten doesn't do that. Once you sign, you are there for 4 years. You might be a 4th string player but you're not going to told to leave the university.
So I think I have seen this posted before, but graduate students get paid for their services. Right now I get fee remission and an additional salary as a graduate TA. We have a union (we are represented by the UAW). We can also tutor/intern/whatever on the side and accept money for it. Between teaching and research, we probably bring in more than our "salary" (which on its own is laughable, I would probably be better off in the fast food industry), but it is understood we are also receiving something of great value. Furthermore, different schools offer different amounts of money. And the "haves" for the most part get the best students. Finally, pay is loosely attached with performance. For example, a master’s student is less likely to get a TAship. Although they continue their fee remission, they don't get a salary for that quarter. We also went on strike this past year. Some of the biggest issues were class sizes and work load. I think people are thinking too much about how "Charles Woodson" would change the landscape of negotiations between the "union" and the NCAA. Most of the members would be people who are not going to get drafted and I think a union could really benefit them. There are a lot of imperfect things in this model, but I don't think it would turn this into a "semi-pro" system. (And knowing what it takes to survive on my "salary", I would still be able to view the athletes as college students.)
Between living in an insular world and raw arrogance, the NCAA may well lose this case simply because they fucked it up. Not unlike the way the MHSAA approached the "equity" case brought on behalf of girls sports here in Michigan.