Unverified Voracity Likes Normal
End of the road for amateurism? Blasting the NCAA has been one of the rare bipartisan activities over the past few years, and judging from the things said at the Supreme Court's hearing for the Alston case it sounds like they're about to drop a bomb on the organization:
Justice Amy Coney Barrett later questioned why the NCAA should get to decide how to define what it means for an athlete to be paid.
Several justices also expressed skepticism about the NCAA's "high-minded" claims about the importance of preserving amateurism.
Justice Elena Kagan asked why the court shouldn't see the NCAA as an organization that has undisputed power over its market and uses the idea of amateurism to fix the price of labor. Kagan said that while amateurism may have been created more than a century ago to protect an institution that provides social value, that doesn't mean that is its function today.
The above might not capture the spirit of the hearing, which is being unanimously described as a bloodbath for the NCAA.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal calls the NCAA's argument in front of the Supreme Court yesterday a "complete, unmitigated disaster." He thinks the justices viewed the NCAA as an emperor with no clothes.
— Dan Murphy (@DanMurphyESPN) April 1, 2021
Hard to disagree with that when even the court's most conservative members are saying stuff like this:
Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said that “the antitrust laws should not be a cover for exploitation of the student-athletes,” adding that he doubted that college sports fans understood amateurism to require it.
“To pay no salaries to the workers who are making the schools billions of dollars on the theory that consumers want the schools to pay their workers nothing,” he said, seems “entirely circular and even somewhat disturbing.”
Justice Clarence Thomas noted that other participants in college sports are paid enormous sums. “It just strikes me as odd that the coaches’ salaries have ballooned,” he said, “and they’re in the amateur ranks, as are the players.”
I'm not entirely clear on what the court could do in this instance. This is the case where the previous judge said the NCAA had violated antitrust and proposed some disappointing half-measures as a remedy. I don't know if the Supreme Court can expand that to a generalized free-for-all.
[After THE JUMP: pants are featured]
Happy belated Burkemas. Eight years and two days ago:
Eight years ago today, @TreyBurke hit "The Shot," propelling @umichbball to an overtime win over Kansas in the #Sweet16. pic.twitter.com/kaNq1iGQrb
— Michigan Alumni (@michiganalumni) March 29, 2021
Would you like to be even more frustrated? If so here's a chart from Shot Quality of how the Sweet 16 teams defend the paint:
Highly, highly improbable outcome. As Seth said on WTKA this morning, if this was a regular season game everyone would say "burn the tape" and move forward because it wasn't a real representation of the team.
Dickinson back, probably. I don't think Dickinson was ever thinking about being a one and done even midseason when he seemed completely unstoppable but this tweet exchange with Frankie Collins would seem to indicate he'll be on campus next year:
That #2 gonna look real good on you next year
— Hunter Dickinson (@H_Dickinson24) March 27, 2021
Ah yup. Ben Mathis-Lilley on Juwan Howard:
The team generally wins with synchronized offensive motion, ball movement, disciplined defense, and physical tenacity—all that crap—rather than through individual brilliance.
That this seems surprising ultimately speaks, though, to an insidious dichotomy implicit in some of the reaction to players who talk on the court, wear black socks, patronize Miami clubs, or use their leverage as skilled contractors to determine where (and with whom) they’re going to play. The idea (I held it myself, in the aftermath of LeBron’s extravagant “Decision”) is that such activities are correlated with an insubstantial, “me first” brand of actual basketball, one that exists in opposition to the kind played at John Wooden’s UCLA, or by Princeton in the 1980s, or whatever. Put all the trappings out of mind, though—the press conferences, the Nike logos, the Lil Jon bangers leaking seductively out of the club onto South Beach at 1:45 a.m.—and think about what the Fab Five and the Heat actually were like as players. They became iconic teams because they were, in fact, good at being teams—unselfish, resilient, and mindful of the necessity that different players have different roles. The Heat were great passers and aggressive, scary defenders; the Fab Five played with mental toughness and cohesion against older, more experienced players under a level of pressure and criticism that now seems almost unimaginable.
Juwan Howard is bringing out a lot of latent racism on the RCMB.
obligatory [Bryan Fuller]
He's not wrong. New Indiana basketball coach Mike Woodson has one major advantage over recent IUBB coaches:
IU AD Scott Dolson said he heard from NBA people "there is no better mind than MIke Woodson." But his temperament was important, as well.
— Jon Blau (@Jon_Blau) March 29, 2021
"We just need a normal person. A person who fits in with the team ... He was the right person, and that was important." #iubb
Mike Woodson does not have a collection of severed fingers in his basement. His pants are not mystically weird. His hair is not scaled. In these ways he differs from Archie Miller and Tom Crean.
How hockey ended. Via the Daily's Jack Kingsley:
The Wolverines hadn’t had a positive COVID-19 test since the beginning of July, but prior to leaving for Fargo on Tuesday, a Michigan player was left behind due to COVID concerns.
“At that point, we knew we could have some issues,” Pearson said. …
Later that day, another cloud was cast over the game’s status when another player experienced COVID-19 symptoms, and a subsequent test came back positive, putting the status of Friday’s game in question. But even at that point, Pearson believed that Michigan had enough healthy players to field a team.
“At that point we thought we were still in good shape,” Pearson said. “We had 24-25 healthy guys who were testing regularly and had no issues. But obviously that wasn’t good enough for the NCAA.”
The team seemed snakebit all year and the bloody-minded universe saved the best for last. Hopefully they have banked significant karma for next year. Brendan Roose asserts that a mandatory quarantine period before the tournament could have avoided this, and it's hard to disagree.
It begins. Cam York signed with the Flyers. This was expected—York came back last year explicitly stating he'd sign after his sophomore year—and Michigan has no other defensemen definitely departing and three D in the recruiting class. Now we start waiting for decisions from guys who weren't expected departures.
We won't know about Power, Johnson, and Beniers until late July since they're draft eligible and that event occurs the 23rd and 24th of July. Beecher, Brisson, Bordeleau are all potential departures as first- or second-round picks.
Hallum doing well. Jackson Hallum was a surprise third round pick in the most recent NHL draft and had a productive high school year, in large part because he's an elite skater:
He’s majestic on blades.
“In the change of direction and the stops and starts, not only are they done at a high-rate of speed,” Eigner said, “but it’s almost pretty to watch, because it’s so effortless.”
Eigner has coached a number of high-end players in his coaching career, including NHLers such as Ryan Poehling. His staff has worked with plenty of greats, as well.
Yet Hallum is still one of, if not the, “most athletic hockey player we’ve ever coached.” …
“He’s fun to watch in terms of the things he can do. It’s fun,” Eigner said. “If you’re a fan of hockey, and you appreciate great skating — not even great, like, exquisite skating — then that’s fun to watch.”
Hallum has a 17-24-41 line this year in just 21 games and also put up 8 points in 9 USHL games. He's tentatively scheduled to have another year of junior before arriving, but if Michigan needed him to come in next year because of departures it seems likely he'd be able to have an immediate impact.
Etc.: Why Owen Power is going to get drafted quickly. NHL dot com on Ethan Edwards. UNC announces Roy Williams is retiring on April Fool's Day, which is a good April Fool's joke since it's true and everyone's like "hmm… suspect." Warning: do not bathe the owl. The Daily on Mike Smith. Texas hires Chris Beard away from Tech. Resign, Ron Weiser.
"The Last Time the Suez Canal Was Blocked a Utopian Communist Micronation Was Formed at Sea."
If in fact the SC drops a bomb on the NCAA, I will be interested to see if the playing field levels off or if the recent success of programs like Bama will be enough for them to still dominate recruiting. We’z got mo money
I doubt the USSC’s out to blow things up though. It’s their style to issue harsh words and then feebly punt on actual rulings. They’re also extremely anti-labor. It’s more the NCAA’s case is just that bad.
They still have a case to adjudicate. Prospects for the NCAA are grim in terms of getting their appeal upheld. How this will affect the logjam of cases behind them, though, doesn’t bode well for the NCAA.
I'll be interested to see what it means beyond revenue sports - both men's and women's sports. Because the implications for 'pay players what they're worth' paired with some of the Title IX / 'this sport loses a ton of money' is going to be weird, no?
I feel like players making money off their likeness is fine and there will be a normal market for that, but if you start having to treat athletes as employees, then I think you're going to see a lot of sports get dropped at a lot of schools
You don’t have to bring Title IX into this to run into that problem. A third-string linebacker at Western Basketweaving U. is a net loss to an athletic department.
I don’t have a simple answer other than the status quo is untenable anyway. It’s messed up, but that’s precisely because the NCAA couldn’t give less of a crap about amateurism. LSU was literally handing out cash bonuses on camera and they got to pick their own punishment; what’s left of this so-called “amateurism” to preserve? We’re already watching paid employees!
A third-string linebacker at Western Basketweaving U. is a net loss to an athletic department.
Is the end game of all the regulatory wrangling schools "can" pay players or schools "have" to pay players?
Considering most athletic departments in the country run a deficit, shouldn't it already be assumed that not every school is going to be able to afford to pay players and/or pay the same stipend.
... and the outcomes of that are -- especially if equal pay is mandated across the board:
* schools cut some varsity sports;
* schools drop athletics all together;
* the rich get richer.
I assume coaching salaries are about to tank. If the key to winning is simply offering the most money to the talent, then coaches who can relate to parents or who can scheme against Don Brown's blitz packages are less valuable.
We can't afford to pay you so you'll have to do it for free. Back to the mines, peasants!
I graduated from a top-100 university three years ago; it's a racket everywhere. I paid 60 thousand a year to be taught by someone who got paid $2000 a class while the University President made 1.8 million dollars. Don't look behind the curtain or you might see something that looks like an education sweatshop.
And if a school has to cut football who gives a damn? Why should they get a luxury item they can't pay for? We could kill two birds! Now I don't have to see ads for the Shitstain Bowl featuring SW Missouri State and a team that won 4 games. Double win!
Seriously. You're telling me that college football bleached all of its culture and tradition in exchange for a corporate sponsorship on literally everything and suddenly no one can find they wallets?.
A first string linebacker at a non-competitive P5 program is a net loss to an athletic department.
90% of players in the NCAA IN REVENUE SPORTS are a net loss to the athletic department.
LSU was literally handing out cash bonuses on camera and they got to pick their own punishment; what’s left of this so-called “amateurism” to preserve? We’re already watching paid employees!
The question then becomes, how dumb is UM for still trying to follow the rules?
I'm probably the only person who does not like the idea of players making money while in college off their "likeness". Especially, going to be super damaging to Michigan football in particular.
Michigan has been about the TEAM. Players making money off their likeness turns this into a performance art, not a sport any longer.
People have seemed to suggest that 'shooting the UM money cannon' will bring glory & championships. With top athletes coming to play at Michigan for the high profile money platform it will bring them. You know, the old Block M BRAND. This is a fallacy.
It will bring broke alumni and companies sympathetic to Michigan.
It will be "show-boat" talent which will likely produce little on the field, but lots of TikToks.
Michigan will fleece its own supporters for player money & lose to teams with 3* guys who are hungry, angry motivated individuals who are told -- -- you weren't good enough for Michigan and the money train --- go destroy them.
If you have shoe deal, a Jordan contract, a children's book, a clothing line, a sports-drink - are you really focused on beating ohio state?
Go Blue.
I’m with you. I don’t generally watch pro sports, so this could kill my interest in college sports, especially if it turns into “Pro Lite”. It seems inevitable though, so start preparing yourself for more free time on Saturdays.
I think it already is "Pro Lite" - that ship has sailed. I see the benefits that athletes receive from their scholarships. Access to great universities (sometimes average or less than average universities as well), exposure to the public and pro leagues, contacts, etc. If you are an athlete at a D1 school, you have a lot of opportunities after you are done playing. As has been drilled in to everyone's mind who has been watching the tournament, less than 2% of NCAA athletes go on to compete in pro sports. However, it's hard to argue that players shouldn't receive some compensation when coaches make millions of dollars, athletic departments make tens of millions of dollars, and universities receive additional donations to their general fund based on athletic performance. Not to mention the long term potential health/injury issues that many athletes can face.
Your logic in the second half of the comment is flawed.
It assumes that 1) all of the results obtained by a school sports team are only from the efforts of the players and 2) that the players are not already being "compensated". This is akin to saying that students (or student athletes) in high school or junior high should be "paid" because their teachers/coaches/admins/schools are making money off them. People are simply complaining because, in a small subset of cases, some schools and employees are making millions while other schools (in identical *legal* situations) are only making thousands. The relationship between a student and school is not employer-employee by default, the student chooses to attend and agrees to whatever stipulations are required (which may include temporarily forgoing outside compensation in exchange for a very generous scholarship offer) in exchange for a higher probability of maximizing earnings after college.
The legal crux of the issue should not matter on the financial totals of the arrangement. If a school *loses* money by offering a sport, should they be allowed to pass those losses on to the players?
Well I dunno crg - is your business allowed to charge employees to pay for the business' losses?
Except for a *school*, aren't the students (including the student-athletes) technically the customers/consumers? (as someone who has worked in academia for a portion of their career - this is *exactly* how they approach it.) The university is the party providing the services (including hosting, organizing, training, equipping and paying for the athletic teams).
Players need not be deprived of deserved income to be good teammates.
It is curious that hardly any (if any) players from the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and 2000s were complaining about loss of "deserved income" from their college playing days. Student-athletes have gone, in a surprisingly short span, from "thank you, School X, for this amazing life-changing opportunity" to "damn you, School X, for keeping me from my money!"
This is quite a PR campaign being launched the last decade or so - makes one wonder who stands to benefit the most by all this potential money being directed towards the student athletes (read: agents and marketers).
I suppose my confusion stems from reading my admission offer. It said "University of Michigan" when it probably was meant to say "Semi-pro Sporting Franchise of Michigan with attached university".
The timeline you selected to make your point went on at least a decade or two too long crg - SMU got the "Death Penalty" in the 80s for such blatant compensation of players that the ncaa couldn't ignore it. We know they weren't the only school, just the stoopidist!
In the 90s we know the Fab 5 were questioning why Michigan could reap all the profits from selling gear with their names & likeness.
The increasing dissatisfaction you cite correlates precisely with the ballooning TV rights & media exposure, leading to an explosion in AD staff compensation (particularly HC pay).
My question would be, in adjusted $, how does Harbaugh's pay compare to Bo's?
That difference may just account for why athletes aren't just "grateful" anymore!
One can pick selective examples of outliers (SMU for example), but they are not representative of the entire landscape at their respective times.
Also, much of the history of ncaa-illegal benefits were recruiting enticements, not compensation for performance and marketing value (ie NIL would not have made a difference since there was virtually no public recognition/market value for recruits - unless it was just a way to launder money payments to recruits & players... not that that would be how NIL is going to be used... not at all, I'm sure.)
You agree that the problem has nothing to do with the fundamentals of the current student-athlete agreement (since the basis is the same now as it was decades ago) - the problem is that the schools have ballooned their revenue. As such, the solution should not be to adjust the rules to benefit a small subgroup of the student-athlete body, but instead perhaps revise the rules about what schools (at least public, taxpayer supported schools) are able to monetize. It would help to address the ridiculous arms race (which includes absurd coaching salaries - an individual sporting could should never have a salary that dwarfs entire academic departments, let alone be a state's highest paid public employee.)
You'd have to give a concrete, workable example of what you're proposing for me to have any idea if your idea has any merit.
I feel like I've seen you drop this suggestion into numerous replies, but I don't recall any proposals how to bring about your reversing a century's worth of increasing AD revenue bloat?
I wouldn't say I have a detailed plan for what the optimum solution is - this would need to be a deliberate and complex set of rules to clarify how the ADs should be allowed to operate (and this would be even more difficult to enforce upon the private schools).
I would say let's start with some basic concepts that could be incorporated into a more comprehensive plan:
1) I think we can all agree that the revenue coming in from (a subset of) college sports has grown exponentially - and almost all of this is a relatively recent phenomenon (mainly with the proliferation of televised games). If you look at the first ~100-120 years of college football (being the poster child sport here), there certainly was some revenue growth - mainly driven by increasing gate take-in (thus resulting in the first arms race for building larger stadiums - such as our own). Towards the later part of that same period you could also see increase in revenue from merchandising (shirts, hats, etc.) Yet the merchandising was a much broader scale/scope than simply the sporting teams and even the gate revenue growth was not enough to support entire ADs (to the point of having the tail wag the dog, so to speak). The true explosion in revenue coincides with televisation - most dramatically with the advent of cable sport channels such that *every* game was on and the objective was to maximize eyeballs. This identifies the correlation of the revenue growth but not the underlying source: where is this revenue originating? Not from the audience directly - they may or may not actually pay to watch the games, but those fees are not driving the AD bloat. As we all know, the real money is coming from the marketers/advertisers: the reason it take 3-4 hours to play a 60min game, the reason we get generic corporate sponsor themed venues, the reason the inside of spartan stadium (and others) look like a giant billboard in a subway station, and the reason people do things like place a giant macaroni noodle next to a football stadium. That is the #1 problem. If we want to return to having true "collegiate" sports - i.e. those played by actual full-time college students and was the basis for the rise in college sports from the beginning, we need to prevent it from being exploited by for-profit marketing. Especially in the case of public (i.e. taxpayer supported) universities. Private schools might not be able to be forced to comply, but conditions could be made such that - if the want to play against the public schools - they must abide by the same regulations. This does not preclude school sporting events from being broadcast. With today's technology, the schools can easily stream their own games with high production quality (and simultaneously giving real-world experience to students in that career path).
2) The concepts behind athletic scholarships need to be overhauled. If you look at the origins of athletic scholarships, they also play a role in the unchecked growth of the sport. Specifically, they were instituted by schools in the early 20th century (including M) to bring in "ringers" that otherwise might not consider going to college. Although the intentions behind this move were not exactly altruistic, it had the benefit of helping thousands upon thousands of young men (and later women) get an amazing educational opportunity. Yet it is still limited in scope (only those with specific athletic talents - not all of them actually *needing* the financial assistance to be able to attend college); it is also prone to abuse and compromised ethics (helping to bend the rules to get marginal students into school while other, more academically deserving, students may be excluded). It has also been co-opted into a social justice argument, being promoted by many as a key way to increase minority enrollment in universities (and framed often as being the only way some of these kids can get in). How to reform this system? One possibility is to eliminate the athletic scholarship completely (or perhaps only significantly reduce it) and instead focus academuc assistance on those of true economic need. The cost should never.exclude someone from legitimately seeking a college degree. If a young person comes from an impoverished family, they shouldn't have to rely on their athletic skills to gain entry into college (which also takes their focus away from developing their academic skills). If they can do both - great! - but the academic side must come first.
3) Proper alternatives need to be in place for those kids that either 1) want to go directly into paid sports and have no interest in further classroom education and 2) the subgroup of kids that want to be paid for their sports but also get an education (e.g. part time students that also want to put in 30-40hrs a week to playing a for-profit sport). These options already partially exist for some US sports, and are growing, but need further development (the worst example being football, considering that baseball and hockey have done this for decades and basketball is coming along).
As I said, this is not anywhere close to a comprehensive plan, but addressing these issues would go far in treating the root causes of the problems we see in today's "revenue" college sports.
What absolute twaddle. This is the worst kind of feelings-ball.
The NCAA had every, EVERY chance to not fuck players over with restrictions on side jobs and a hundred other stupid-ass, senseless rules, and they just couldn't do it. So if this is what they get, fine by me.
Typical "liberal" individualism response.
Players are NOTHING without the program.
This ain't swimming (an individual sport). It's football.
Join the brotherhood and win something, the money will come.
Go Blue.
Gotta love it. "Shut up and dribble." That didn't go over well the first time, either.
Your username and profile pic certainly check out... 'You vill march in UNISON!'
Is there any chance in your, ahem, groupthink friendly view point, that perhaps Michigan's football coaches would still recruit players that enjoy the team atmosphere while participating in a team sport? Or are you just convinced, because of no signs whatsoever that Michigan wants to bring in a bunch of individual egos, that they'll only allow in individualistic egomaniacs?
Your lawn looks impeccable, BTW...
Danke.
This made me laugh.
I'm torn. I do feel that athletes should enjoy the same freedom to earn money while in school that say the typical chemistry student is able to earn while in school.
If a student-athlete wants to sell cars at the local dealership and their likeness brings in customers, so be it. The problem is the dealer will pay the player 10x what they would pay other employees or what they would pay the chemistry student. It will be corrupt & the 17 year old will have an ego the size of the Big House.
How do you coach a guy who says "Coach, you make 7 million a year, and I make 10 million."
I don't see "teamwork" in that model.
The problem as always is the corruption. You won't get the genie back in the bottle & we'll have a big potential for "hype flops - guys coming in making YouTube videos and selling crap and not winning a damn thing". That's all I'm saying.
I hope I'm wrong and we PAY OUR WAY to a Big Ten Championship and National Championship.
I just don't see it. Can't you see the headlines now?
MICHIGAN violates policy on players earnings - NCAA death penalty next, news at 6.
(a Haiku by M.Valenti).
Rebuttal the issues I raised regarding the culture & corruption Venn diagram intersection with real ideas on solution -- coming towards college athletes -- I'll meet you halfway.
Now, I must go fix a particular blade of Kentucky blue failing to stand at proper attention.
Alles Klar.
Go Blue.
How do you coach a guy who says "Coach, you make 7 million a year, and I make 10 million."
Stop screaming at the fictional world that exists only in your head. When this actually happens, scream then.
To be fair, in the 1930s some folks believed that there would be another major war in Europe and were quite vocal about rearming to counter Germany. Then the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.
Don't construe this as an argument for the purity of amateurism, but....
....this is a really awful argument, particularly in the middle of a pandemic that nobody was prepared for. When that scenario does actually happen, it will obviously be too late to change. Fixing problems before they happen is infinitely preferable to afterwards.
" How do you coach a guy who says "Coach, you make 7 million a year, and I make 10 million.""
Have you ever watched a professional sport in your life?
" Have you ever watched a professional sport in your life? "
I think that is the point he is making.
The problem is the dealer will pay the player 10x what they would pay other employees or what they would pay the chemistry student.
What’s the problem? I know some of our former players work at car dealerships. People are going to buy a car, might as well buy it from a famous person you want to meet. I’d have loved to take a test drive out with Denard Robinson, and he’d probably sell more cars than generic chemistry student.
It will be corrupt & the 17 year old will have an ego the size of the Big House.
Our recent kicker had a commitment video of himself coming out of a plane after our coach had a sleep over with him in attempt to snag his commitment. If you’re worried about egos, you should have stopped watching many years ago.
I always thought individualism is for Capitalism. Group and TEAM are for socialists.
Just as players are nothing without the program, the program doesn't also exist in a vacuum without the players, past, and present.
You keep making weird arguments. Local dealerships already pay the players. Make it aboveboard as much as possible, and potentially the bad money will be driven out of the system.
Universities don't have to have an athletics department. I would argue, athletics departments actually piggyback on the university students and alums to run a "Semi-amateur" sports league.
This. It’s very Ayn Rand Atlas Shrugged, a book which many on the right revere, including Clarence Thomas himself, with the NCAA and colleges being the parasitic “looters” to the producing athletes. It’s not a surprise the conservative judges have been all over this.
Ayn Rand yuck.
Don’t take my comment as a Rand endorsement. It’s not, only that the idea of talented, producing people being taken advantage by a parasitic bureaucracy is in line with the the book, and is a problem that likely vexes the conservative majority of the Supreme Court. They definitely don’t see attempts of the players to be paid according to their talents as “liberal”individualism.
The program is nothing without wait for it...
...the players/individuals.
You rail against the NCAA rules and regulations yet you don't seem to be aware of how they came into being. These were not done to be arbitrary (nor with any intent to screw anyone over as you claim). The purpose of the NCAA and their rules was two-fold: to maintain academics as a priority (preventing the sports interests from dominating - there are volumes published about the conflict between school presidents/faculty and the athletic departments in the early days) and also *prevent* school sports from being abused by monied interests.
The real problem is that NCAA no longer does what it was meant to; in part because it is toothless (no power to go after actions not directly within the athletic department purview - just look at the UNC cheating scandal as well as all the player bribing that occurs where the money goes through intermediaries and is difficult to trace) as well as spineless (many schools now are so addicted to sport revenue, from event syndication, apparel merchandising, and corporate sponsorship, that they no longer desire to have the ncaa do anything to disrupt it).
This does not equate to "NCAA bad"; it just means "NCAA broken".
Get off my lawn.
FTFY
You can have a shoe deal and want to beat Ohio State though
Also, literally any change to the status quo is preferred. We haven’t beat OSU for like 10 years remember? 20 if we disregard Luke fickell’s year.
I think Bo would agree with your sentiments but that's not the world we live in today. The players are student-athletes above all else. Meaning while in college they should at least fulfill their educational requirements. I believe all UM coaches preach this sentiment first.
Secondly along your point is that these students are athletes and with the ungodly amounts of $$ they bring in for the university, it stands to reason they could make a buck or two. It's not like regents or boosters would just be handing straight cash to these kids (cough-SEC-cough). But they could set up a stipend or trust account until after their collegiate career where they can at least get paid.
Won't go down the worm hole of who gets what and how much, but there is a way to compensate players without creating an individualist environment within the team.
Carr explicitly agreed with the sentiment. But recognized that money had already corrupted the beautiful pure vision of amateur sport so supported reforms. Probably not enough but still. The money is obviously there the question is who should be getting it. And right now it is just the coaches and administrators and the TV networks. None of whom are exactly taking major risks here.
Especially, going to be super damaging to Michigan football in particular. Michigan has been about the TEAM.
This is a naive take in the year 2021.
Thoughts like this romanticise a long gone era.
An era, which I suspect, probably didn't exist as we know it either considering there was no internet, wall-to-wall CFB coverage, or social media back in those days.
>I'm probably the only person who does not like the idea of players making money while in college off their "likeness".
That's possibly the absolute coldest take on this situation.
If you have shoe deal, a Jordan contract, a children's book, a clothing line, a sports-drink - are you really focused on beating ohio state?
Yes - there are countless examples of pro athletes that make tons of money and train/compete at a very high level, win championships, etc. One could argue that pay and effort are correlated. Your assertion that compensation reduces motivation or competitive spirit simply doesn't hold water.
And by the way, some of the best college athletes are already getting paid under the table and still work alongside (or even harder than) their teammates to win games.
If you're worried about players putting their own interests ahead of the team then I got news for you - it's already happening. See the transfer portal, opting out of bowl games or even entire seasons.
LOL. I love it with you guys that all this stuff only falls on the players. Coaches, administrators, presidents, everyone else can sell all the way the fuck out and everything is fine but a player gets a couple bucks and the whole idea of team can never be salvaged.
Great. OSU will stop caring about winning and maybe we will stand a chance.
Seriously, you think that the importance of "winning the game" will decrease? The most marketable teams and players are generally the ones that win the most.
You are really overestimating what student athletes are going to make off NIL. Other than the absolute biggest stars, people like Zion Williamson and Trevor Lawrence, they are not going to get giant contracts with major brands. There will be a local market for them where they can make modest money. Advertising budgets for local companies are just not that big. As an example, the average advertising budget for a car dealership in 2018 was $562,000 with $316,000 going to internet and only $155,000 going to TV/Radio.
Varsity Ford is not dropping 100k for Hunter Dickinson to do a commercial. It’s probably more like 5 or 10k at most. He is a star and probably would only end up making 20 or 30k doing some promotional work for a few local companies. For the lessor known players it will be less. Giving student athletes the opportunity to make a few grand is not going to destroy college sports and should not be any of the NCAA’s business.
Comments