OT: Jay Bilas Calls Out NCAA
If this is too off topic for NO OT season then feel free to delete, but it is about the NCAA and college football so I think it fits.
Basically, Bilas called the NCAA out on its own hypocrisy, and as a result, the NCAA disabled the search function on its online shop. Pretty hilarious stuff if you ask me.
August 7th, 2013 at 12:14 PM ^
Therein lies the problem; NCAA Football is currently the NFL's "minor" league.
Do minor leaguer's get huge salaries and benefits? Nope, but they get a little something something (e.g. real cash and not the implied value of a scholarship).
Let each player own their own rights (e.g. marketing/appearence fees/etc.), let them hire agents and/or regulate those who wish to become NCAA agents like the NFL does, let Agents "advance" money to kids HOWEVA this is done without any payback gurantees. If a kid washes out then that money was a bad investment. Future stars will get paid their worth, 6th rounders will get nothing unless an agent really wants them.
Or you attempt to "fix" the sport and get all the money out of it, which is simply never going to happen. Its a catch 22 situation when college football used to be the thing you did before the NFL and 4yrs tuition seemed like fair compensation. Now its turned into its own industry and you cannot blame the players for wanting their cut of the pie.
August 7th, 2013 at 12:29 PM ^
You can't say minor leaguers don't get huge salaries and benefits. By and large that is true, but the signing bonuses for 1st round talent in baseball, for instance, can be 7 figures.
I have to ask where's the end game with allowing the players to earn money off of their name and likeness. Is it what's best and fair for the individual players? I don't think anyone can argue against that. Is it what is best for college athletics - the answer to that is most certainly no. You can't pay them without paying the other college athletes, so that is off the table.
An already unlevel playing field in college football only gets worse with this, though. The NCAA already cannot enforce much of their rules. In this scenario there is nothing stopping the big programs from setting up an SMU style payroll using autographed memorobilia (as one example) to fund the whole program. The program with the fanbase / boosters willing to shell out the most gets the best players.
If everyone is ok with this, then hell yeah, bring it on.
August 7th, 2013 at 10:42 AM ^
You can keep your scholarship OR you can market yourself and profit from it. It's a gamble kids would have to take. If you can't market yourself effectively, you'll be scraping by like every other college student. If you keep your scholarship, you can't profit.
Either way, athletes stay eligible. If you can keep the scholarship but try to profit outside the system (as is the case now), you can be punished with eligibility revocation.
I've always felt that the star players should be able to cash in on their status, especially those kids who will be GREAT college players but not necessarily pros. I've never felt like the University should pay them directly. That's the scholarship.
August 7th, 2013 at 11:16 AM ^
I sort of agree that maybe college athletes should be able to earn from marketing themselves outside of the college/ncaa. Kind of like if an athlete had a part time job, they would earn money for that.
But what would concern me is who would watch and monitor that what they were getting in return was appropriate. Like cars, and tens of thousands of dollars payment would seem a little fishy.
Also, some schools would be able to sell recruits that at their school they would be more noticable and be able to make more coin on the side.
JMOs.
August 7th, 2013 at 11:28 AM ^
August 7th, 2013 at 10:59 AM ^
August 7th, 2013 at 11:33 AM ^
August 7th, 2013 at 12:26 PM ^
It would never be a mandate that you have to pay players, it would be a benefit of going to a school that can afford it.
I like the idea of paying players but I know it can never work practically. It's a free market, let them market themselves. I don't understand why someone should have to choose between scholarship or the ability to market themselves. I don't see why they have to be mutually exclusive.
If a company came up to Denard and said "Hey Denard, you're a mega-star in the college world, most everyone loves you and you seem like a swell down to earth kid, we'd like you to endorse this product/be in this commercial" I don't see why he shouldn't be allowed to do that.
As far as the argument goes against what schools will do ("hey, we can promise you $X/year in autographs/all these others benefits) doesn't that already happen now? What are these pro-style practice facilities, promises of what the degree/name of the insititue can do for you, playing time, etc? They're all designed to get the player to come to the program. I largely think the landscape of college football won't be affected. The haves are already way beyond the have nots. You'd still have the same 20 or so odd teams consistently dominating the college football landscape.
It's not like NC State and Washington State are all of a sudden going to start losing their 5 stars.
August 7th, 2013 at 11:04 AM ^
You have beat me to this.
August 7th, 2013 at 12:23 PM ^
The NCAA already cannot enforce much of their rules. In this scenario there is nothing stopping the big programs from setting up an SMU style payroll using autographed memorobilia (as one example) to fund the whole program.I agree 100%. The forces of change and reality have made a mockery of the amateur student-athlete model. Too much money is at stake and it will find its way to the players one way or another. Enforcement efforts should be put towards making player payments open and transparent - for example, boosters who wish to pay players should have to register with enforcement bodies, along with projected budgets for each fiscal year. The payments should be documented and taxed accordingly. We all have nightmares about duffel bags filled with cash but it is part of the landscape now; we must find a way to reconcile this harsh reality with collegiate athletics.
August 6th, 2013 at 10:04 PM ^
There has to be a fair way to do this and paying players on scholarship is not the answer but the NCAA should not "pretend" to not be making large amounts of money off players names.
Paying the players - and allowing them to market themselves - seems like the exact answer to me.
This is blissfully ignorant of Title IX.
August 7th, 2013 at 10:38 AM ^
What about allowing the players to make money that is untouchable until they graduate with a degree or leave school?
August 7th, 2013 at 11:39 AM ^
I guess I'm just not feeling these players pain with the not having money in hand while they are at college. They are having so much payed for already. It's seems to me with this many short sighted players having extra dough right now would just lead to more off the field issues. If it were deferred until after they leave school it would help the non NFL players and Star players alike.
August 6th, 2013 at 10:04 PM ^
This thought just came to mind, so I haven't vetted it yet but... why not have those apparell contracts partly be distributed to the players at the university?
It's still a free market system where each university negotiates for the contract, but players get a piece (maybe some universities distriubte it to just fb & bb, others to all sports, or in between). Bigger schools get bigger contracts and can offer more - as has been the modus operandi since day 1.
the big problem is UA and Nike have an inherant anti-market force that would operate for Oregon and Maryland, but it's not like Oregan hasn't already taken advantage of that anyway. and Maryland to a less ridiculus extent.
I'm not an attorney, but I would think Title IX attorneys will make sure it goes to everyone if the funds come through the AD.
does title IX apply to financial compensation? There's no one saying female coaches need to get equal pay.
August 7th, 2013 at 10:06 AM ^
As I said, not an attorney. I did find this interesting <link> though
Myth: Title IX requires equal spending on women's and men's sports. Fact: Title IX does not require schools to spend the same amount of money on male and female athletes. Title IX requires schools to treat male and female athletes equally, but it recognizes that a football uniform costs more than a swimsuit. So it does not require that a school necessarily spend the same amount of money on uniforms for the swim team as for the football team. However, the school cannot provide men with top-notch uniforms and women with low-quality uniforms, or give male athletes home, away, and practice uniforms and female athletes only one set of uniforms.
August 7th, 2013 at 10:22 AM ^
Ok, so they may force some compensation but the % cannot be mandated?
August 7th, 2013 at 10:33 AM ^
DB talks about it a bit on wtka on July 29 http://www.wtka.com/page.php?page_id=87 about ten minutes in. His opinion - it is illegal.
August 7th, 2013 at 10:35 AM ^
but legally speaking the enforcement standards for Title IX are by far the easiest thing to change in all of this. If by some crazy turn of events Title IX isn't even mentioned in the hypothetical court ruling that forced NCAA members to fork over dollars to current students, it would literally take the writing on one piece of paper with the Secretary of Education's signature to make that Title IX compliant, either by saying they'll look the other way or by explicitly making an exception.
Bottom line, IMO, is that the Title IX concerns will be an afterthought in a post-we-have-to-pay-athletes world. If it doesn't get to that point, there's also nothing to worry about with Title IX in respect to paying athletes because obviously.
August 7th, 2013 at 10:28 AM ^
August 7th, 2013 at 10:32 AM ^
they probably do.I'm sure the swim team gets all kids of speedos/bull body/2 pieces. chrome swim caps, temp tattoos of wings on the shoulders.
August 7th, 2013 at 12:07 PM ^
Temporary?
August 7th, 2013 at 12:23 PM ^
1. The NFL obviously uses NCAA football as minor leagues for freeso make a league thats not college based. I believe the market can support it. There will be kids that choose to learn and kids that choose to get paid.
2. A portion of all jersey sales and player likeness go to a fund that is given to the player only after meeting requirements of graduation, no severe discipline issues, etc.
I already really like Jay Bilas and his honest breakdown of players. He leaves Kuyper in the dust as far as giving good information without the douchey hair and doing all the research himself. Jay Bilas actually lives across the street from my brother in law... funny.
Well, in his defense, Kuyper has been dead for almost 100 years. And I don't know that I'd call his hair douchey. Styles were different back then.
August 7th, 2013 at 10:23 AM ^
August 7th, 2013 at 11:07 AM ^
August 7th, 2013 at 11:41 AM ^
August 7th, 2013 at 11:42 AM ^
with tweets about their sale of Manziel and other pop college stars memorabilia in part because of its relevance to the pending O'Bannon case and also because the NCAA is at a crossroads with conference commissioners about future policy including student-athlete compensation.
The hypocrisy has been overwhelming for years on various fronts in enforcement of amateur rules that enable the regulating institution to earn from the benefit of athletes whom the NCAA is sworn to both protect and punish when necessary.
If Manziel took money from brokers for signed gear, the only problem anyone has with this is based on his current eligibility, because we know that many athletes including Michigan players have also been paid for memorabilia signings after their eligibility has run out.
Enforcing a corrupt standard just because it's a rule on the books doesn't make its enforcement righter or cleaner now than in the past, especially when the winds of change are in the air. My recommendation: Allow college athletes to benefit from the sale of merchandise that clearly identifies them as the source or reason for the purchase, because of their popularity. Any number of methods of compensation could be adopted for both current and future payment to that player.
If the NCAA intends to sell merchandise connected to its member school athletes, then it must kick back money to that school and those funds ought to be rededicated for the kind of financial program that would reward the athletes who generated it. This can be worked out in an amicable way even if a judgment works against the NCAA and forces past payment retribution. Taking a proactive position would go along away in changing minds about NCAA positioning.
August 7th, 2013 at 11:57 AM ^
August 7th, 2013 at 12:15 PM ^
are the players reporting the income and paying taxes on it properly?
August 7th, 2013 at 12:25 PM ^
What do you suppose the likelihood of that to be in Columbus? No one can even get them to report tattoos.
August 7th, 2013 at 12:39 PM ^
If all schools and boosters who wish to pay players are required to register with a central enforcement agency along with the amount of money they wish to give in each fiscal year, and players' disposable income is monitored, then the economy of player payments can be regulated. Cars and stereos - expensive, desirable things - count as payments for the purposes of this exercise (looking in your direction, Jack Maxton Chevrolet). Players and boosters both have to report the gifts/payments or action can be taken. Documentation of the source of expensive things could be required as well.
In your solution are you using fiat to enable the NCAA to govern these activities? I get that the monies would fall under IRS, but that's not stopping boosters from making end arounds that now. How would it be any different?
in his vehicle, NCAA enforcement bodies could require him to provide proof of purchase to show that he got it from legitimate, declared booster monies, along with supplemental documentation from the booster in question. Schools already require players to register their cars with the A.D. Young people love to flaunt financial success and shiny new things - like on Twitter, for example. A streamlined, smart enforcement body could do these things more efficiently and fairly than the current rules allow.
A streamlined, smart enforcement body could do these things more efficiently and fairly than the current rules allow
Do you have one of those lying around?
In the spirit of being a contrarian, I'll argue that its much easier to hide an income when you have an income.
and you'll find out exactly who's spending on what.
It is definitely easier to hide an income when you have an income!
August 7th, 2013 at 12:35 PM ^
August 7th, 2013 at 12:45 PM ^
I can't figure out why any of the things you suggest might happen are supposed to be problems, much less huge ones.
August 7th, 2013 at 12:52 PM ^
that give them the best chance of reaching the NFL. Nick Saban built his empire on that desire. A booster can only do so much to motivate a player to want to attend university X which happens to have a terrible coaching staff, or is the wrong type of offense/defense for the style of play at which the recruit is most proficient. Some recruits may not want an NFL career and instead will go to programs which offer the most money for five years, then get a job in another field.
Creditors have the right to pressure their benificiaries to change their course of action. If the coach is not playing the booster's players, then the booster can question the value of his/her payments to the program. The final say for initially accepting players into a given program still rests with the office of admissions and the coaching staff. Assuming the booster has the best interests of the program at heart and is not spending $10 million a year to foist truly awful legacy players on a given university, the quality of teams should be unaffected. Idaho State will not be a power program in our lifetimes, player payments or no player payments.
not that I have given this an overwelming amount of thought because I just don't have the time, but every single scenario I can think of that involves players getting paid during college brings up huge issues, much bigger than the ones they currently face.
So can we insitute a rule that any coach that leaves his current program for a different job must sit out a year.