Jon Chait Replies to Brian Re Player Payment

Did he just call Brian a marxist? I always suspected.

From this point forward I will now refer to Our Dear Leader as "The Estimable Brian Cook"

Chait suggests that paying players will not stop schools from arranging (or turning a blind eye to) player payments in ordrer to gain a competitive advantage.  Perhaps so.  But a player with $20,000 from an agent may be less inclined to accept $500 from a booster (thus increasing his account from 20,000 to 20,500) than he would if his bank account were zero (in which case, the booster payment would increase his net worth from $0 to $500).  So, while not stopping illegal payments, paying players through agents or other means should reduce the incentives to cheat.

The problem, however, is that incentives (like illegal payments) are less effective than disincentives or punishments.  Currently, players like Pryor may forfeit their college eligibility if caught.  Unfortunately, some of the worst offenders, like Pryor do not really care much about that.  Also, others may judge that the risks of getting caught are small if a school, like OSU, has longstanding, "trustworthy" sources of booster money.  So, in many cases, I think, the only way to significantly impact the problem is to create strong disincentives to cheating for the schools--ie to severely punish the the offending schools with losses of scholarhips and money.   The NCAA needs to really make them hurt and think twice about cheating in the future.

Admittedly, this is only one of the many issues discussed by Brian and Jon.  Other issues like equity and preservation of the educational experience also must be considered.

If you pay them, can you fine them for making mistakes? Say a player accepts 500 dollars from a booster, that player as a result is suspended, forced to pay back the money, plus another 500-1000 fine is given that is pulled out of future payments. Sounds like an added layer of deterence...I like it

One twist I wanted to throw out for discussion on the payment options (wherever the money is to come from) would be to use it more like a post-graudate fund.  That means that athletes could draw a certain portion of it during the year for expenses but that a majority of the money would go into a savings account. 

They would get access to this account upon using up their eligibility.  Then you can pro-rate the amount based on academic standing, years completed, graduating, off-field incidents, etc. 

Giving the kids a little spending money should cut down on at least some amount of booster payments and then the incentive of keeping in line on and off the field to make sure they get a nice check upon leaving school should help too. 

Obivously there's a lot of red tape to sift through, but what do you think?

Still think the best solution is to let endorsers pay players if they want. No money from the school/NCAA, no Title IX issues, nothing like that. Make athletes sign some sort of "morals" pledge to be able to play (so probably no strip clubs, faces on vodka bottles, gun shows, whatever).

If Denard makes big bucks for Adidas, they can pay him to get up on a poster at Foot Locker; if having five random Michigan football players helps a restaurant in Ann Arbor on their opening night, go ahead and give them fifty bucks and a gourmet meal. Also, when Jack Kennedy goes to sing, the venue should be able to promote it as, "Michigan QB Jack Kennedy" (I'd bet if he keeps singing after he graduates they're going to promote him as a former QB anyway). I'd put money on the most common "endorsement" would probably be a free meal if an athlete wears their letterman jacket, or something just as simple.

Trying to posture this as "greedy adults taking advantage of poor kids" is inaccurate, and I think where a lot of the distaste comes from. For all my disagreements with him, I do believe that Dave Brandon is dedicated to graduating student athletes - and that any attempts he takes at "maximizing revenue" is ultimately to give that revenue back to the student athlete so they can excel at their sport and in the university. Doing this is a full time job, so he earns a competitive wage, as do his employees. And the athletes are not his employees.

For the most parts, college athletes play their sport because they love their sport. They're lucky that in this country we recognize excellence on the field/ice/court/pool as being translatable to excellence academically and professionally, so we give them scholarships. Scholarships certainly started as a way to attract the best recruits (see MVictors on Tom Harmon: http://mvictors.com/?p=9596) since universities recognized that fielding a good football team was a way to make money, but in the here and now I don't think it's too naive to think that our ADs, coaches and university presidents care about the athletes for more than just the revenue they bring in.

Now does that mean that certain athletes are worth more money than they receive through scholarships? Does that means it's fair for the NCAA to restrict whether they can have a friend fix their car for a six pack? In my opinion, yes to the first, no to the second. But can we assume this bureacracy exists not just to take money from the athletes, but because administrators actually think a college education is the best route for most involved? Doesn't mean they're implementing it appropriately, but that doesn't mean they're evil either.

......stipends they receive for their scholarships. That and a paid college tuition for four/five years means a ton to most athletes(including football players with the rest of them). After that, increase the penalties upon the school for any extra payments via boosters or "jobs".