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 12:34 PM ^
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.
August 7th, 2013 at 12:39 PM ^
August 7th, 2013 at 12:46 PM ^
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?
I watch because I love my alma mater, not some pie in the sky notions of how things should be.
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.
August 7th, 2013 at 12:44 PM ^
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.
August 7th, 2013 at 12:13 PM ^
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.
August 7th, 2013 at 12:58 PM ^
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.
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.
/s
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!)
I have no idea why so many people want to ruin what's unique about college sports. Once players start getting different amounts of outside income for playing, the model is broken and the sport loses its appeal. Simple as that.
This whole kerfluffle remains a solution in search of a problem.
Denard shouldn't be allowed to do it because Alabama and Ohio State will get boosters to pay and bid for players and the players will no longer be amateurs.
It's then no longer college sports; it's minor league sports. Thanks but no thanks.
I'd have no problem with any rule limiting coaches, or anyone else. I'd have no issue capping coaches' pay, administrators' pay, any of it. Hell, I'd have no problem limiting teams' TV appearances. That's the way it was pre-1985 and the sport was great.
I'd do any and all of these things before I'd pay players different amounts from each other.