to play football, not to play trumpet
This is one of the VERY few times where Jay Bilas' trolling actually was awesome. The fact that he single handedly made them disable their search function blew my mind.
Jay Bilas has always had an issue with the rule.
but I think part of the problem is there are so many rules that most people really have no idea that many of the rules exist until they are broken and subsequently passed along to the public via the media.
Now I know some times it happens that a well known rule is fine with everyone until one day their favorite player breaks it and everyone has a stroke, but often times it's a rule no one has ever heard of that gets broken so people objecting in those instances (which I think are far more prominent than the other instances I mentioned) are fair play IMHE.
Worked with most players too. I searched Jeremy Gallon and Devin Gardner and it came up.
My favourite part was that you didn't even need to pull up the player's name necessarily. Typing in 'Shoelace' put a Michigan #16 jersey at 3rd or 4th in the search results...
My favourite part was that all the colours of each sides kit were the same as they are when each side wears them on the pitch.
This was hilarious to watch unfold. I love that the NCAA's solution was to remove the search function. Still down now as some intern has probably been tasked with cleaning out every name mention on merchandise.
Export the item list. Edit the search keyword column for player names. Import item list.
Won't take too long for a few people to do it. Probably paid employees since they NCAA is so loaded.
Did Jay Bilas just win the internet today?
In a nutshell:
...it's possible to go into the search engine of ShopNCAASports.com, type the name "Johnny Manziel" and end up on a page filled with items connected to Texas A&M and Manziel's jersey number despite the NCAA's long insistence that specific jerseys for sale aren't connected to specific players.
I always thought the NCAA and college athletics in general were insane for denying that they're selling a specific players jersey. Even at Michigan, the jerseys CANNOT EVER HAVE NAMES ON THEM but I saw a lot of #7 jerseys being sold from 2005-2008, a lot of #5 jerseys sold in 2009 and a heck of a lot of #16 jerseys on display from 2010-2012. Seems like a craaazy coincidence there!
I'll just order my custom #2 Michigan jersey with my last name on the back; it's "WOODSON" if you were curious.
You can find one on eBay much cheaper. I got a very nice Nike Woodson jersey for 50 bucks. Looks brand new.
But couldn't the NCAA license/use a proprietary search engine that simply draws from relevant search topics of the main search engine? Seems like an easy way around this issue.
A bit ironic, since espn the magazine has manziel on the cover
ESPN isn't telling Manziel he can't get paid then selling his gear.
... by the actual definition of irony or by your intended meaning,
Lol trolling them like a boss
Please explain how Johnny Manziel accepting money from boosters, or from selling autographs, will impact other sports. I'd love to hear this explanation...
Or are you saying that schools directly paying players will affect other sports? Schools have been paying MILLIONS to coaches and the corrupt bowl system for years. Maybe they could just "re-direct" some of that money. To, you know, the people who actually generate it...
They could redirect money, but they won't. Michigan won't decide to pass on a good football coach so they can keep cross country. Sorry cross country, go race each other in the Arb.
Newsflash: tuitions have already skyrocketed, and it wasn't because schools were sharing athletic profits with their athletes.
Yep. 100K for an adminsitrator job that you don't even really need a GED to do? Comon down.
Right now star players are effectively forced to donate their sizable earnings potential to the university to subsidize the athletic department. I'm more comfortable leaning more heavily on voluntary alumni donations or (gasp!) reducing the profitability of the athletic department than forcing a 20-year-old kid to forego 100% of his earnings to pay for the cost of club volleyball teams.
What's particularly interesting here is that, in their rather strenuous disagreement with the class action suit about likeness currently ongoing, you can find this:
"The fact remains -- the NCAA is not exploiting current or former student-athletes but instead provides enormous benefit to them and the public. "
I have this image of Donald Remy, their head of Legal, saying this as the credibility is burning to the ground...
It's coming guys.
The end is near for the NCAA.
I have a dream that one day, jerseys will be sold with players names on the back, and those kids will get a cut of the revenue. That EA
NCAA College Football video games will already have all of the accurate information on the rosters just like the NFL game. And that players can get as much as they want at training table on their bagel.
Cream cheese at last, cream cheese at last, Thank God almighty cream cheese at last!
Off topic season is over.
you are a bored and sad individual.
Wish you were not here.
Good stuff. I always found it hilarious that the NCAA acted as if the name on the front of the jersey was all they cared about, not the one on the back. I get that this is a huge issue with lots of nuances, but for once Bilas's complaining about hypocrisy hits right.
Obvious point but few in his position are making it
Texas A&M freshman quarterback Johnny Manziel took the SEC by storm last year as he lead the Aggies to a 11-2 record and won the Cotton Bowl. Topping things off, Manziel became the first freshman to ever win the Heisman trophy in the history of the NCAA. Celebrate #2 and his historical first year by sporting this No Heisman Without the Man T-shirt. This adidas tee features “No Heisman Without the Man” lettering printed on the front with a Heisman Trophy graphic and a Texas A&M wordmark printed on the front. Make sure everyone knows that Manziel is the man with this tee!
Also of interest, other NCAA outlets like CBS Sports are just as guilty, interesting part is the high profile players have had thier search tags removed, but not all of them...
Excellent stuff. Jay just made me a fan.
For everyone on Bilas's side - what is your proposal for players to get paid? Lots of people like the "they deserve it!" argument, but what's the plan here? People are against Terrelle Pryor getting a corvette, but they're OK if he gets a corvette in exchange for his autograph? Doesn't sound corrupt to me.
let players market themselves without threatening to take away their amateur status and be hands off
the market will dictate their worth. If they get too ambitous and focus more on events than football, then their play will decline and their value will drop
This. Let them hire agents. Hell, let the universities be these kids' agents. Hey Adidas, you want to sell #16 jerseys? Well Denard gets a cut.
Desmond Howard shouldn't be in this absurd legal battle over who owns the rights to Desmond Howard.
It is estimated that Johnny Manziel has brought a boost of $38 million to Ta&m... Pretty sure that $100k schollarship aint cutting it as far as compensation goes.
The NCAA likes to sit on their high horse and proclaim that athletes shouldn't be allowed any benefit that regular students aren't allowed. Well I'm pretty sure that John Q Engineer is allowed to make money off of his name, should there be a market demanding it.
That could open a huge can of worms. Could you imagine Phil Knight and Oregon? They could start bank rolling players. Then what happens with recruiting? Coaches come in and start laying down spreadsheets of how much the average player and the top players make at their universities?
What's the problem with this? This is America. We believe in capitalism.
It would make college football incredibly corrupt. It would be like the NFL, except with no salary cap and with 18 year olds. It would ruin the sport.
Yes, there are already too many have and have nots in college football.
You cannot go down the paying players road.
If people really want to open it up for the players then someone should create a semi professional/minor league and then have at it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Exactly. Some schools would promise certain kids x dollars per year in autograph sales or something else. Or a booster will tell a recruit he can have a summer job making 30k without showing up. What happens when that recruit doesn't pan out? Do we then have kids transferring for more money? That's not a college football I want to see.
Why do we need to pay the girls water polo team? They don't generate money. As it stands the football team pays for their existence. We don't need to pay the other players. This is 'Merica not the USSR.
Even in 'Merica we have rules, and title IX is one of them, though I'm not entirely sure how it would apply.
The bigger issue to me is - where is this money coming from? Are only the ADs in the black mandated to pay their players? This is like the voters who want their state or city or school district to have more _____ but don't have a clue how to get the money to pay for it.
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.
You have beat me to this.
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.
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.
What about allowing the players to make money that is untouchable until they graduate with a degree or leave school?
I like that, but I don't think it solves the problem. These kids want money now, so under your plan they would still sell autographs or whatever for their "now" money even if they knew they were getting money later.
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.
I think it's great that the NCAA is getting called on its hypocritical stance. If they weren't all about squeezing every dime they can out of star players while extolling their love of amateur athletics the call for payment might not be so loud.
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.
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.
Ok, so they may force some compensation but the % cannot be mandated?
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.
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.
wouldn't that mean that Oregon should have to provide every sport with 10 different uniforms?
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.
I wonder of schools will break away from the NCAA and form their own association where as a collective whole they create the rules.
Isn't that how the NCAA was created and currently operates?
Yes, but the group that would breakaway would only be a subset of the current NCAA. The MAC schools don't want these changes because they'd be even more separated than they already are. So only the BCS schools would secede.
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.
So if I'm an OSU booster and I promise Damien Harris I'll buy 20k worth of his likeness every year he's a Buckeye, and no one at Michigan makes him that promise, you're OK with him bailing for the highest bidder? Because that's what will start happening. Boosters would be able to show up with duffle bags of cash, as long as a signed jersey is exchanged for it.
are the players reporting the income and paying taxes on it properly?
What do you suppose the likelihood of that to be in Columbus? No one can even get them to report tattoos.
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!
Let's say they are (it would be a low tax bracket anyway). Does that change it? You'd still have kids picking their favorite booster instead of their favorite program. And then what happens when mega booster is paying some kid, but the coach won't play him? Does the booster cut him off, or does the booster tell the coach he won't bring him recruits unless the coach plays his guys? If there are agents, are the agents convincing their players to transfer schools to play now rather than wait their turn? Because the agent will only have the financial best interests involved and nothing else.
I just think this solves a small problem by introducing huge ones.
I can't figure out why any of the things you suggest might happen are supposed to be problems, much less huge ones.
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.
No, because a coach can also be fired without warning. It's a different contract. I think a player should be guaranteed a four year scholarship, but should have to sit out a year if they transfer. A coach, OTOH, does not need to sit if be makes a switch, but can also be fired at any time without warning. If you want players to have all the benefits coaches have, they need to have the drawbacks as well, and I don't want that.
You can always control the methodology and level of compensation.
The government sets a threshhold of earnings for tax purposes.
If a kid earns money now from undisclosed broker payments, like Manziel, who is going to report the transactions for tax purposes?
Isn't this essentially what Ohio State boosters did under Tressel's watch? I mean boosters cloaked payments in a variety of ways and always have. This isn't new.
But if you have a standard that benefits the schools and the regulating instiutuion at the players' expense, how do you maintain a standard of integrity? Just by insisting that 95 percent of our athletes aren't going pro in their given sport?
You could probably argue that some schools benefit to a greater extent when certain athletes attend their school than others, but even salespeople get paid commissions for bringing more money into the school. Now those commissions are paid directly to coaches and their staff instead of the players who are most responsible for boosting a coaches status and a particular program's ranking from year to year.
It's not the why that I disagree with, it's the how. I don't like the idea of boosters and agents having a major and necessary impact on college football. Sure, there are some kids who get money under the table now I college football. But in your scenario, every team will need to go this route and recruiting will just turn into a bidding war and I don't want that.
Why should anyone care what you want? Why should a bunch of college students be exploited to protect what you want? Who do you think you are?
Because I'm a fan, and when enough of us lose interest, that money goes away. Keeping fans happy is a pretty big part of the sports business. I'm not a huge NFL fan, and if college football becomes likes the NFL, I will watch far less of it, including Michigan, and I'm not the only one.
I watch because I love my alma mater, not some pie in the sky notions of how things should be.
Only because it's your alma mater and not because it's exciting? Do you follow cross country? That's still your alma mater.
I'm willing to bet if the sport became less interesting to you, you'd watch less, alma mater or no. And keep in mind that Michigan relies on lots and lots of people who don't share our alma mater to be interested too.
I find football exciting, pro and college. Same for baseball, hockey and basketball. I could care less about the other sports. I don't follow Softball because I don't care about it. I don't understand why the sport will become less interesting. Maybe a negligble percentage of people will lose interest but it's not like I'm gonna take up gardening or birdwatching to fill my Saturdays.
I don't get a boner at the thought of "OMG THIS GUY IS PLAYING FOR THE LOVE OF HIS UNIVERSITY". I get excited when a big play happens and I doubt that will cease.
But not everyone is just like you. I like Michigan football more than pro because I know these guys aren't playing for paychecks. It's clear that these changes won't affect you, but don't assume that everyone agrees with you either.
I have friends who get offended when I start talking about the rosters for each team and what year each player is, interesting stats, and the like. Imagine how most fans feel about the business side of the game. Plenty of people will still tune in even if the players are being paid.
I'm not saying no one will watch, but if viewership drops 15% that's pretty major. I find that there's a lot of ego and drama in the NFL, which is why I watch it a lot less than college football. If it weren't for fantasy football, I would watch almost no NFL. If college football turned into another version of that, I'm not saying I'd give up on the sport, but I'd definitely be less interested, would attend fewer games and would certainly buy less apparel.
I'm not saying everyone has my opinion or even the majority of fans do. But I know there are a lot of people who enjoy college football for what it is and will be less interested if that changes.
Ever hear of Tim Tebow? He didn't start getting hype when he went pro. Ego and drama are what sell jerseys and drive ratings in college and in the NFL. Just the few minutes of Sportscenter I catch at the gym are more than enough reason to justify never buying cable to get more of the same schlock. Heck, I usually mute the TV when I watch games just to ignore the media-driven storylines which only interfere with my viewing experience.
College football is a magnificent edifice and a testament to the strength of the American system. Its cornerstone of amateurism is crumbling, and a new regulatory framework is needed to preserve its legitimacy.
And there aren't a lot of egos and drama in college football NOW?
I mean I definitely don't think it's as pronounced as it is in the NFL but it's still there.
College football stars are already plastered all over the media all day...is that much going to change if they get a piece of the cut?
There is media created drama now, but I think the college game has far less of it than the NFL. Look at our team - not a ton of either. If some of those guys started bringing in money, the whole dynamic would change. And I'm saying I don't think it's worth it. I see that you disagree, and that's OK, but I wouldn't welcome the change.
I am suspicious of justifications that are equally apt defenses of gladatorial combat.
What is your actual point? Why do you care if there's an open market for players?
An open market for players ruins the "level playing field" that is pretty much necessary for parity, fair competition, and enjoyable sports.
In professional leagues, there is no "open market." The league and players conspire to limit the market through the salary cap, the draft, etc. The NCAA does the same thing through the amateurism rules. A player won't get any more or less cash (you could argue the relative values of the scholarships) by choosing between Michigan, Northwestern, Akron, or Alabama. It's what makes the competition compelling year-in, year-out in college football. Of course it's highly flawed, but it's the system we have, and which has largely worked for a hundred years.
The people looking for a change might not know what they're wishing for. Yeah, a more open market to funnel money that goes to the coaches, administrators, facilities, etc. would have some positive outcomes, such as more properly compensating the players who earn it, but the potential negatives are not considered. If you're okay with a system where the rich literally get richer, there there is an even more elite level of wealthy programs (probably only the top 2-4 in each big conference) getting all the best players due to their $$ advantage, then fine. Personally, I think there are major problems with that, and could potentially lead down a road toward the end of college football, as the smaller programs decide they can't keep up and shut down.
What level playing field are you talking about? Pretty sure Alabama reamed us nearly as badly as we ream MAC teams on a regular basis. (Or did the Toledo game convince you that they have access to the same resources we do? Do you expect CMU to be a nailbiter?)
In what sense has the system, which exploits players, "worked for a hundred years" according to you? You must love it when guys leave early to go undrafted instead of finishing their education.
The top 2-4 programs in each big conference already get all the best players due to their $$ advantage. When was the last time Indiana out-recruited us head-to-head?
That's not the point. Of course there are inherent advantages that you can't account for and correct--tradition, history, facilities, academics, location, weather, etc. The level playing field was referring to the fact that Michigan, Alabama, Toledo, CMU, and Indiana all follow the same rules--85 scholarship limit, no extra benefits, and on. Within the established system, the rules keep the competition somewhat fair.
Did Alabama beat us because they have more money to pay their players? Nope, pretty sure they beat us because they have a) better coaching and b) better players. We could have recruited some of those players, but we didn't, because (a) and also the other advantages Alabama has (close to home for SE players, recent success, better conference, history, fun school, good fanbase). I can accept that. I bet we would hate to lose to Ohio, Alabama, or anyone else even more than we have recently because their boosters can write bigger checks than ours can.
If the exploitation was so bad, why do 3,000 kids sign up to join it every year? They are free to do anything else with their lives, yet they choose to be a student-athlete, knowing the pros and cons that come with it. Kids are lining up to be a part, that doesn't sound like exploitation to me.
If the exploitation was so bad, why do 3,000 kids sign up to join it every year? They are free to do anything else with their lives, yet they choose to be a student-athlete, knowing the pros and cons that come with it.
The same argument could be used to justify using civilians for collecting unexploded munitions or mining diamonds in Third World countries for use by local warlords on the grounds that everyone is signing up to do it every year due to lack of economic opportunity.
Kids are lining up to be a part, that doesn't sound like exploitation to me.
Since we have an entrenched and revered system, we have no reason to make it less exploitative.
based on income earned by schools and the NCAA from TV rights fees and merchandise sales to support athletes both now and in the future with regard to a player's school commitment.
I don't think schools and the NCAA even have to sacrifice that much in order to make this kind of arrangement work because it could be based on annual percentage and dedicated as a set-aside fund.
If schools are going to benefit from the rights fees paid for the enhancement of their programs, and their athletes form the actual bond of that emotional and financial enhancement, then the players have a financial stake in the success that both reputation and current success warrants and dictates, even if contractually they are bound by a four or five-year commitment that currently restricts their compensation to tuition and housing benefits.
Everyone else is getting paid. It's like squeezing the middle class while rewarding everyone else at the top because the business model and the sales funnel channels all the profits to the 1 percent while legally denying the 99 percent a share of the pie.
When you recruit and pay athletes to attend your school, you have given them the veneer of professional status, even if you create pr campaigns aimed at denying that claim. It's only tradition and the amateur viewpoint about their status that disguises what these athletes really are, especially when you consider the wink and nod enforcement of time demanded on athletes in their given sport. They are only not considered pros because they are not directly paid for their services and their development as players is seen as the job at the college level, preparing students for the wider world.
Yet, the NCAA and the NFL have long operated in hand in glove with each other in order to benefit themselves and the thin line that separates them and the distinction between amateur and professionalism. And who would argue that recruitment practices and player targeting doesn't reinforce that contention.
Again, what is the end game? I don't understand how to pay the players without ending the whole sham, end scholarships and everyone's a free agent or under contract. Athletes shouldn't have to attend class because that is interfering with their ability to make a living, right? Screw the athletes, they should fend for themselves in the other aspects of life that the university typically helps them with. Coaches don't have to drone on about character or feign concern about the athletes and they can just cut underperformers and injured players.
Seems like hyperbole maybe, but that's what letting the free market dictate the terms of the games means.
American universities can behave like educational institutions in a capitalist society without behaving like a cartel (as they currently do) or like corporations pretending to be amoral in their rampant immorality (in your fantastic scenario). Part of what players should be able to negotiate is guaranteed tuition and benefits. But they should also get cut in on deals currently made using their names and images, and be able to negotiate individual marketing deals in addition, etc. The end game is a players' union that helps them do all of that. Nothing worse.
I'm willing to concede that my Hobbesian fantasy is hyperbole, I think I already admitted to that. I doubt its going to be as easy as unionizing the players, though. This is a mess that is going to take decades to unravel. If this is the underlying assumption you're working on I'm not opposed to that sort of progress. It would be nice to see a halt to further erosion of competitive balance. It would also be nice if they could do this without taking away the opportunities of non-revenue generating athletes/programs.
I'm not surprised that you have such an unrealistic view of how this would all work. Some players making a bunch of money marketing themselves while others get nothing but a scholarship sure doesn't foster a team mentality. If a player has to decide between what is going to help the team or what will get them more endorsements, many of them will make the wrong choice.
It's that players can't be trusted to function on a team unless it's an artificially communist organization. So that's why the Patriots spend most of the season complaining about Tom Brady's salary. Makes sense.
No it doesn't.
Even on the Patriots, there are a lot more "me" attitudes than on college teams, and if you have a college team where only the stars are getting paid, i think you'd see a lot more of it, which I think is a bad thing.
Next you'll tell me an O'Bannon victory leads to gambling in Las Vegas.
Walk-ons usually do not get scholarships and yet they still play. Schools can still offer scholarships but I could see some schools cutting the number of scholarships they offer to lower their Title IX burdens, if they have more extensive booster networks.
Assuming athletes are still considered nominal students of the university for which they play, I have no problem with them going down the Johnny Manziel route and taking all of their classes online. What you get out of your education depends on what you put in to it. There will still be the Taylor Lewans of the world who major in marine architecture engineering - it is all at the discretion of the players. If a player is attending school on a booster's dime and receives pressure to drop a tougher major to focus on athletics, that comes with the territory for accepting money from anyone.
Cutting players for underperforming and injuries is a slightly different issue than paying players outright; however, paying players still impacts the cuts. Whomever is paying for them to attend school will have much more input with the coaches than they do now. If the players are on four-year guaranteed scholarships, they have nothing to worry about. If it is a one-year renewable scholarship, those terms were also made clear when they agreed to come play. If a booster is paying for their education, along with 5-6 other players at a given school, they may intercede on their behalf with the coaching staff to keep Jake Ryan (say) on the roster even though his ACL is torn, or else the coaches risk that booster not recruiting and paying as extensively to keep recruits coming in to the program.
I do not see where "screw the athletes" is a natural corollary from giving them more money. Oregon and schools like them will continue to build glitzy new practice facilities and funnel as many resources as possible to keep their players eligible, since it is still in their best interest. If coaches want to stop feigning concern for their players, that is their right, but players will have more options for finding the places where coaches do care about their players. (I'm not going to attempt to rewrite transfer rules - above my pay grade!)