https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/ncaa-agrees-pay-208-million-settle-an…
I'm not sure of the long term legal ramifications here. It looks like the NCAA's amateurism rules are slowly crumbling.
Is monetary compensation for college athletes the unavoidable end result?
February 4th, 2017 at 3:06 PM ^
Maybe.
February 4th, 2017 at 3:21 PM ^
If that is the case, then something needs to give. All the money that the revenue sports bring in goes to help fund all the other non-revenue sports as well as coaches' salaries, facilties, etc. If you start paying players in some sports then what about all the other sports?
And for the vast majority of schools that are not self sufficient like Michigan, they are already in the red, how will they keep up? Maybe we will have to cut back programs and/or make some varsity sports club sports.
February 4th, 2017 at 3:53 PM ^
But it isn't fair that the money is earned on the backs of the football and basketball players without them getting a cut.
I would even be ok with letting them get endorsements, booster paid jobs, etc... that way the FB, BB players get paid and the there is still money in the athletic departments to pay for the other sports.
February 4th, 2017 at 4:11 PM ^
It seems as if you would treat the players as employees.
A sport that loses money wouldn't be able to afford to pay their "employees" outside of the traditional scholarship. A sport that makes lots of money would be able to afford to pay their "employees."
Earlier today I was listening to ESPN radio and there is some sort of a female sports show where they were saying that NFL cheerleaders are underpaid as they are at the "pinnacle of their profession." The obvious counterargument to their point is that waving pom-poms as NFL cheerleaders do isn't exactly a profession. If they were to all go on strike, the NFL would simply hire new cheerleaders to wave pom-poms and the fans wouldn't notice.
February 4th, 2017 at 6:55 PM ^
Players in revenue sports are already employees in all but name. They deserve a fair share of the absurd amount of revenue they create.
I would say cheerleading can be called a profession but the market dictates their replaceability as other cheerleaders will work for free and fans will still come to games in the same numbers (I still think they deserve worker protections given how teams treat them in the absence of those protections).
Players, however, exist in an artificially capped market and are the revenue drivers. The argument people show up for the logo and not the talent is an absurd one; if they put the talent of MGoBlog out there vs 11W on the Saturday after Thanksgiving nobody is showing up or tuning in.
February 4th, 2017 at 7:35 PM ^
dude, I'm totally watching team MGoBlog vs team 11W, and you know you are too. Doesn't even matter what sport.
February 4th, 2017 at 8:03 PM ^
Damn I was hoping you'd be on the field. We're really counting on that Ivan Drago training regimen.
February 4th, 2017 at 9:01 PM ^
I'm a fan of Michigan sports. It doesn't really matter who the players are for the most part. I become a fan of the individual players after learning about them and watching them. If you put every current Power 5 player into an NFL minor league, I'd still watch Michigan games. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't watch the minor league games though. I'd 1000x rather watch a Michigan game than some random NFL game, even though those teams are much better.
I don't think I'm alone.
February 5th, 2017 at 12:11 AM ^
Definitely agree as to college games. However, I do get upset by the semi-pro teams that we, along with the majority have to face. I was not upset a bit to see Clemson, with a far smaller payroll, in my opinion, upset the team most recognize as having the highest payroll in cfb. The press conferences following the games that, somehow end with the margin of victory less than three TDs. The coach, acting as if he's doing what every other coach is doing will give credit to the losing team, then quickly point out the numerous breakdowns in execution by his team, and the FUCKING IDIOT ANALYSTS, knowing full well whats taking place, will actually lend credibility to the act by mouthing something like, "Well it won't be fun for Alabama this week. Appears as if Saban has enough ammo to regain their attention."
Think the major difference this season was, even though Clemson might not be able to, or have decided on their own to cap the spending at a certan amount, but if you're going to become a part of that crowd, I think they spend as wisely as anyone. Watson is as close as I've seen to Cam in regard to being able to put an offense on his back and scoring when necessary.
February 4th, 2017 at 8:18 PM ^
That until recently, the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders were paid $50 per game; they now receive $150 per game. That maybe sounds like a lot for a 3 hour game, but how many hours of rehearsal, etc are required before each game? That hourly wage gets small awfully fast.
There are 36 cheerleaders. Guaranteed 8 games. That's $43,200 in pay. The Cowboys bring in over $400m in revenue. The Cheerleaders have had a reality show for 8 years. The football salaries are $148m. You'd think Jerry Jones could afford to pay the cheerleaders a little more.
February 4th, 2017 at 8:35 PM ^
This analogy is actually very similar to NCAA football players.
While they don't make much being a cheerleader, a very high percentage of Cowboys cheerleaders have gone on to have highly lucrative careers as models and actresses after being "discovered" for being a cheerleader.
Not saying it's right, but these cheerleaders and NCAA players know exactly what they are signing up for. A ton of work with the possibility of wealth being the only promise.
February 5th, 2017 at 10:19 AM ^
there are the ones that are hot babes, I mean gifted athletes now that won't make it and deserve some share of the profits while they have their moment of fame.
February 4th, 2017 at 9:24 PM ^
Then you know that every one of those ladies is A.) A volunteer B.) Knows exactly what they're getting into C.) Must be employed and or going to school full time. In other words, being a Dallas Cowboy Cheerleader is supposed to be an avocation, not a vocation.
February 5th, 2017 at 12:47 AM ^
We'll start of by agreeing you won't find too many anything lower than a clear cut 9. When they're that hot, depending on taste, there will be a large number that consider them a 10. Then the 10s or course are all of that. They don't even consider pay when they make the decision to try out. If successful, they already have their plan. Getting hired is the first thing. If successful in that, they know the exposure will lead most of them to tryouts in front of the camera to see if the camera likes them or not. Many just bypass that part of the plan, and go in looking for a single player, ideally one who has been in the league long enough to get that second contract, the one that guarantees them no financial worries for the rest of their lives. If they are fortunate enough to land one of them, investing no more than a year or two as a dancer, they have basically received their business degree. But it promises immediate pay of 6 figures easily by doing what most people, regardless of gender, consider anything but work.
If they are able to to maximize the benefits that a one to two year apprenticeship grants you, by no more than an I do, along with all the other half-truths required to make it legal, they are pretty much set for life. Hell, many of them, if they are able to stay on course for no longer than 4 to 5 years, I'm guessing that's roughly the amount of time before he'll want to upograde to a newer model, still extremely hot, she can realize a golden handshake it an amount we can only imagine, because it will surpass that and, choosing wisely, she can actually search for someone she might be genuinely happy with. If she doesn't opt for that route and decides being a single,hot, wealthy, still relatively young lady is what she actually prefers, she will be set up with everything necessary to enjoy that lifestyle to absolute maximum advantage.
I see no downside for those who make a well thought-out plan and are dedicated enough to follow through. They go in realizing they may have to adjust their life style somewhat, but also realize the actual time needed to reap maximum benefits is far less than those who spend four to five years in college and in addition to being saddled with student loans, only a handful of them will be fortunate enough to see the kind of money these girls will have access to.
February 4th, 2017 at 4:15 PM ^
with all of this. I understand that if it were a completely free market system, UM would greatly benefit. However, I am sure the NCAA would cap the compensation is some form. I am unsure of the Title IX implications also. I am all for players being paid for their likeness (EA Sports) and for autographs/jersey sales, but anything provided to the players by the University itself would be difficult to balance. I would like to see players get paid something, but I haven't heard any convincing arguments as to how that would work in practice.
I guess the major problem is that the model as it currently exists doesn't seem to support players in any sport getting paid unless all players get paid unless it comes in the form of endorsements, and likeness royalties.
February 4th, 2017 at 4:25 PM ^
simple solution is letting the players market themselves/sell their image/stop caring about how much they get paid for part-time jobs ect. No money would come from the university directly.
February 4th, 2017 at 4:45 PM ^
when you start talking money, talking paying players, giving them money...YOU TAKE AWAY COLLEGIATE ATHLETICS. I am sorry, I am old school, I am tradition, I am saying amateur athletics is the very fabric of the NCAA or what it was SUPPOSED to be. If you start sorting eggs between revenue and non-revenue, allowing kids to make whatever they want on part time jobs etc. you might as well just fold the tents and kiss it goodbye.
I played when Title IX and crackdown on spending, budget allocations, scholarship balancing etc came into play. I am telling you now, handing over the reigns isn't the answer to fix what is leaking...STOP the problem, don't open the door to the vault. The NCAA is weak and has proven time and again they won't take care of bagmen, they won't crack down on the schools that cheat if they are market or BRAND teams...but whoa if you are Jacksonville State...don't you dare give a kid an extra pencil.
And the crap about earning money off the backs of these kids (who get a $100,000 scholarship...and if they aren't I am willing to bet their school isn't making the same off them either...) get national exposure, free trainers, free strength and conditioning, free opportunity to make it to the league. STOP the hipocritical BS about HAARBAUGH and his impact on players making it to the NFL...then saying the POOR kids...if colleges, and college coaches are the pipeline to the NFL the NBA, etc...then they are...OR they aren't...maybe the NCAA, THE UNIVERSITIES, THE TV enterprises should stop worrying so damn much how money affects what happens...and focus on the sport, the academics, and the athletes. Handing over the money doesn't make it better or fix it...it's the chicken shit way to say we give up it's more important that we make as much money as possible and screw what happens in ten years...
February 4th, 2017 at 5:23 PM ^
Yeah, we already complain about the SEC bag-man and you think that is a solution?
February 4th, 2017 at 5:30 PM ^
schools for not getting involved. Why shouldn't teams be allowed to pay recruits?
February 4th, 2017 at 6:22 PM ^
Because it's a vehicle for abuse. There's no way they'd properly be able to monitor it. And they are already compensated.
February 4th, 2017 at 11:35 PM ^
Is that the are breaking rules and providing their team with an unfair advantage. There is no societal wrong in a rich guy giving money to a bunch of kids and their families - most of whom can really use the money.
If the NCAA prohibition goes away, they would be doing anything wrong that needs monitoring. Does anyone have to monitor the amount of endorsements that Tom Brady and Peyton Manning get?
February 5th, 2017 at 1:46 PM ^
Agree completely with the unfair advantage provided by those that have tremendous influence over where players are going; thus dictating the big winners on a cosistent basis. All their work is from the shadow, as it must be to ensure continuous, smootly run operation. And no, there is nothing inherently wrong with someone who obviously has the money to "a bunch of kids, obviously strapped for cash." However, I can't even imagine a scenario where their philantrophy extends past the poor kids that just happen to play for his almat mater.
It's the second paragraph where I can see possible problems. If a system were to present itself that allowed an actual environment of supply and demand, you are absolutely correct about the Tom Brady and Peyton Manning type talents. However, players of this type of talent would receive remuneration based on nothing more than the amount certain companies are willing to pay for their services. Although the scenario you describe is obviously of an endorsement type arrangement and I'm pretty sure you're talking about a system that allows for pretty much equal pay straight across tthe board, correct? It seems to me this would be the best approach for the college kids where that big payday is still a year or two away.
February 4th, 2017 at 5:13 PM ^
"Give them nothing" and "Give them so much other sports disappear". I don't see a good reason why D1 players shouldn't be able to do commercials, sign autographs or profit off of their likenesses being used. The other sources of funding don't have to come from the school.
February 4th, 2017 at 6:25 PM ^
It may happen some day. I'd like to see them be able to sign a pro contract and stay in school. Of course that requires cooperation from the pro leagues.
I'm afraid that just letting players get whatever they can wouldn't work out in a way we would like. Much like the O'Bannon case. The value of most players is at its peak when they are recruits. If it was truly an open market with recruits and boosters, they could get a lot more money than they do today. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but that's how players will get most of their money. It won't be from doing commercials or signing autographs except for a select few.
I won't get into gamblers, but they shouldn't be ignored. There are a couple of other things to consider. Boosters can make promises that coaches can't. For example, they could try to induce transfers. They could pay for stats, every point scored, every tackle made, etc. Things that might not be conducive to good team play.
It's possible to think that the players are entitled to whatever people are willing to pay them and still be concerned that it could lead to college sports getting worse.
February 4th, 2017 at 5:13 PM ^
But these teams can't turn a profit. That's why coaches are paid so much. It's not necessary to "cover" these coach salaries. You think the coach pool would dry up if the best only made $1M? I don't
February 4th, 2017 at 5:56 PM ^
It's OK, the coaches in football & basketball can afford to take pay cuts ;)
February 4th, 2017 at 6:26 PM ^
All they have to do is let players make money from outside sources such as boosters and endorsements. That way the kids can get what the market gives them and the schools don't have to pay a lot of money out. Everybody wins here.
Another possibility: pay players minimum wage for the hours they put in and SAG scale for TV games in addition to outside income..
February 4th, 2017 at 7:30 PM ^
Everybody wins except the richest boosters will buy the top recruits full stop. We strongly suspect the SEC and ACC is bribing players and this is largely why some 26/30 top recruiting classes were in the south right. We complain about that right. Well it's easy to favor your solution when you've got Steve Ross among your boosters. Now UM gets the top recruiting class every year, just like that. But is it really diff from what ole miss and auburn etc have done?
February 4th, 2017 at 9:30 PM ^
Many of Michigan's early victories and national championships were won by semi-professional players whose only connection to the University of Michigan was their paycheck.
Of course that' was true for most schools. Some schools, such as UChicago, closed their football program because they couldn't afford to pay their players.
February 5th, 2017 at 2:21 PM ^
This works in the NFL because, regardless of position, everyone is compensated handsomely. But your suggestion that players receive what the market is prepared to pay will create built in animosity due to certain players receiving a far greater amount than their team mates. I can see certain players, if such were the case, easily forget about their assignmnents in favor of taking a gamble to make the highlight videos.
If something actually does come about as to compensating the players, the only way you could still watch your favorite college team is, like now, where everyone is receiving the same amount. This would filter right on down to the h.s. level, where players now are more than willing to take a lower profile position in order to help the team. That might not be the case if certain positions were receiving far greater amounts.
February 6th, 2017 at 7:25 AM ^
The problem isn't so much the school or NCAA amatuerism model. The problem is primarily centerred around the NFL & now NBA colluding with the NCAA to force players to play minor league ball without compensation. This isn't a problem in other sports like hockey or baseball and it wasn't in basketball until recently.
The draft rules of the NFL and NBA are making this much worse. It's no longer an opportunity to prove yourself to scouts for those who wouldn't have already been drafted. Now it's forced unpayed employment, or an internship, for those who would have been drafted, albeit an internship that can cost you a LOT in future earnings.
February 4th, 2017 at 4:36 PM ^
This is the second big settlement the NCAA is paying for the same thing. The first was for players enrolled earlier.
This was about the cost of attendance being higher than what's covered in the scholarships and the NCAA not allowing schools to make up the difference. The first case prompted the NCAA to act. That's why they passed the new cost of attendance rule This lawsuit covered players on scholarship after the previous lawsuit and before the implementation of the new rule.
February 5th, 2017 at 2:54 PM ^
This is great news for the elligible players. I'm sure each of them will appreciate their $9.99 check after attorney fees.
February 4th, 2017 at 3:11 PM ^
Every time someone says "amateurism," they need to mention that this is a word the NCAA invented. Literally. It's not used in any other context anywhere in the language.
February 4th, 2017 at 3:13 PM ^
One step closer to a new NCAAF game.
February 4th, 2017 at 3:17 PM ^
Pay these guys and bring back NCAA Football! It's too bad the NCAA decided to impliment a playoff one year after the last version of the franchise. It's still the only reason I have kept the dust off my Xbox 360.
February 4th, 2017 at 4:05 PM ^
Honestly I wish we could have had one current gen version before they canned the whole franchise. I heard secondhand that EA was 80% done with their (at the time) next-gen version.
February 4th, 2017 at 4:28 PM ^
meh, kinda cool that the last game of the series has Denard on the cover though.
February 4th, 2017 at 7:19 PM ^
Harbaugh will be on the cover.
February 4th, 2017 at 3:50 PM ^
Our money cannon is bigger than theirs (pretty much anyone else)
February 4th, 2017 at 3:51 PM ^
Three threads down in "Tidbits"
February 4th, 2017 at 4:07 PM ^
Fuck Penn State
February 4th, 2017 at 4:18 PM ^
Always a solid response
February 4th, 2017 at 9:58 PM ^
Also makes a solid toast at weddings and bar mitzvahs
February 4th, 2017 at 5:51 PM ^
I really don't see why the NCAA keeps publically saying it's against schools paying players when so many schools obviously pay players and face no penalty for it. I'm personally against schools and boosters buying a kids services, and love that Michigan tries to do things "the right way" as much as possible, but seeing it rampant in so many places and ZERO punishment ever handed down, I often wonder why we don't..
February 4th, 2017 at 6:52 PM ^
Maybe because bagmen are paying the NCAA to look the other way?
February 4th, 2017 at 7:00 PM ^
The NCAA exists only to maximize revenue for schools.
Scandals are bad for business so there's a clear conflict of interest for college sports' chief enforcement agency. The NCAA will only take aggressive action if the public demands it to the point where not acting is detrimental to overall revenue.
February 5th, 2017 at 8:06 AM ^
There were many things Bo was rightfully proud of during his tenure at UM. His familiarity with the history and traditions of Michigan prior to his being hired were at a level shared and understood by those who actually helped shape it, as he would for some 30+ years as both HC and then AD. He understood it for what it was, aware that not too many operated with the level of integrity Michigan was famous for and one of the most attractive aspects of the job.
Bo used it in his recruiting presentation. There were and are certain things not allowable at Michigan and one is even the thought of bending the rules. As Steve Spurrier said, when assessing Harbaugh, "He won't cheat, I know that."
There are certain schools, certain fan bases that really don't care how. I don't think they even hesitate or waste time with denials when asked certain questions when its understood as "off record, " and although it might be absent a sense of pride, it is clearly understood that if that is what it takes, then we'll do it. I agree it has risen to a level where its virtually been perfected and Saban using the blueprint handed down by Bear, but implementing updated procedures in doing so, something he is not involved with as "hands on," the most prominent difference is if there has been an allegation levied, it's unprovable, and unlike Bear, with every member of his coaching tree that was employed by Alabama, all committed violations and were viewed in one of three ways. Considered by the ncaa as "violators, repeat offenders, and in some cases, serial offenders." As clearly understood that Michigan will not cheat and that being very much a part of our history and tradition, The history and tradition of Alabama is the exact opposite, and I've never found a fan of Alabama that is without the same amount of pride for its historically great program as I am of Michigan's.
Harbaugh's early success, and in his second year reeling in a historically great class suggests this will be the norm, not the exception and for every coach who assembles absolutely incredible recruiting classes, and do so in a manner where they may not be caught, I doubt any of them take as much pride as Harbaugh and his staff in setting down at the conclusion, probably drinking a few cold ones, with each and every member wearing a smile, a smile of pride due to their belief, probably true that there is not another university capable of pulling in a class this talented without breaking the rules. And, simply by imagining the level of pride that has to be present in that room, and if my imagination concludes anything close to reality, I suspect they are absolutely correct.
So, turtleboy, there's the answer. It's one predicated on forty-eight years of being a Michigan fan. And as to Garrett's claim, when USC was caught and subsequently penalized, "There is not another school in the country who would not trade places with us right now, based on no more than the past decade's unprecedented level of success." I suspect there are at least three schools who woud disagree with that assertion. However, I have no doubt at all that one would disagree and do so proudly.
February 5th, 2017 at 1:54 PM ^
You write a LOT, holy crap..
February 5th, 2017 at 2:49 PM ^
I'm so hesitant to assume that any school does things the right way anymore. Maybe I'm just jaded.
Comments