NCAA derides California bill to allow athletes income for image/name (SB 206)

[golfortennis]

If only they could spend it on the people doing the work to generate it...

Oh absolutely. I agree with that.

 

[KevFu]

No one out here saying every schools should be out here paying student athletes. Just the ones that make money off of them.

And here's where the argument falls apart! The players aren't bringing in the revenue and I can prove it.

Two best RBs in the 2008 college draft class: Chris Johnson and Matt Forte. Jamaal Charles was pretty good, but they were way better than Darren McFadden and Rashad Mendenhall.

Mendenhall (Illinois) played in front of 54,000 per game -- $13.5 million NFL earnings.
Johnson (ECU) played in front of 40,000 a game -- $47 million NFL earnings.
Forte (Tulane) played in front of 12,000 per game -- $44 million NFL earnings.
McFadden (Arkansas) played in front of 72,000 per game -- $47 million in NFL earnings
Charles (Texas) played in front of 85,000 per game -- $42 million in NFL earnings.

If you traded any of those players to any other team, Tulane still averages 12,000, Texas 85,000, and Arkansas, Illinois, East Carolina the same. They're interchangeable.

There’s zero correlation between how good those RBs were and the attendance of the college football programs they play for. Tulane had an NFL All-Pro Running Back — probably the best player in the history of their program — and they didn’t suddenly start selling out the Superdome. It was still a ghost town.

What about Tim Tebow and Joe Flacco? You trade Tebow to Delaware for Flacco, they’re still selling out the Swamp and drawing 8,000 at Delaware.


The individual player does nothing for ticket sales. The BRAND of the program sells the tickets, and they sell the tickets by being a program that has a roster full of 5-star and 4-star recruits. Who each recruit is actually doesn’t doesn’t matter.

You trade Zion Williamson from Duke to Gonzaga for Rui Hachimura, both programs attendance will be the same because they sell out every game. You trade some scrub from Arkansas Little Rock for some scrub at Loyola Marymount, their attendance stays the same. The name on the front is more important than the name on the back.

 

[KevFu]

The problem is, you have a non-profit entity, which means they need to spend cash. You think those salaries are ridiculous, at least they bring in money. Go look at water polo, tennis and volleyball coaching salaries. They are ridiculous for sports that bring in no money. But when you have so much money coming into a non-profit entity, they need to spend it somewhere.

Yes. But when you talk about ridiculous salaries for sports that don’t matter, that only really exists at the BCS level. I’m glad you mentioned Water Polo, since I’m a fan of it from my time at Pacific.

Water Polo historically had one elite conference (until it split a few years ago): USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal | Pacific, UC Santa Barbara, Long Beach St, UC Irvine, Pepperdine.

That group of nine would win like 100 of 103 games against other teams and be ranked 1-8 and either 9 or 10 in the polls every week. And the four Pac-12 schools dominated the other five. Those four Pac-12 schools have won like 42 of 45 championships, and have about 78 of 90 NCAA Finals appearances.

But Pacific has a coach who went Moneyball on water polo and in the last 5 years has won 40% of his games vs the “Big Four” and been ranked higher than at least one of those Pac-12 schools most weeks. They’ve been ranked Number 1 in the polls multiple times (like Gonzaga in MBB) and gone to the National Championship game.

USC’s ASSISTANT COACH stayed at USC for like 15 years because they paid him like 3x as much to be the assistant than anyone else paid their head coach (He’s now their head coach because the old head coach was fired in the Lori Loughlin college admissions scandal!). The ASSISTANTS at USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford make more than the head coaches at Pacific, UC Santa Barbara, UC Irvine, Long Beach, Pepperdine. And those five head coaches probably make on par with everyone else in men’s water polo. (The next “biggest” programs in water polo are like Brown, Princeton and St. Francis Brooklyn).


The ridiculous money of big time college sports really only exists at the BCS level. SEC, Big Ten, ACC, Big XII, Pac-12; Same kind of ridiculousness but less dollar amounts for Big East and American. And then like, NO WHERE ELSE. Gonzaga’s MBB coach makes high money, but you can’t argue that the only reason people know Gonzaga exists is because of Men’s Basketball.

If only they could spend it on the people doing the work to generate it...

Oh absolutely. I agree with that.

I agree. The support staff for college programs make ridiculously low salaries for the 70-80 hours a week they work.

Oh? Did you mean the student-athletes? Most of us left college with TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN LOAN DEBT. And no one bought us free sneakers, gear, or did our laundry.

That’s the biggest ridiculous non-sense of paying players. The UConn player who said he went to bed hungry because he couldn’t afford pizza. That’s literally everyone student in college. The rest of us had to PAY TO BE HUNGRY IN COLLEGE.

If you ask any non-BCS student-athlete 10 years later about their playing days, they’ll say “Yeah, it was pretty sweet.”

 

[KevFu]

I realize I AM painting a picture of BCS vs non-BCS, there really are tiers of things.

The kids in the SWAC, MEAC, Southland, AmEast, etc, would love to have what we had in the A-10, C-USA and WCC.

But all everyone OUTSIDE of college sports sees is the BCS. Is there a massive problem with the money in all of it? Yes. Yes there is. Will paying the players help it? Not at all.

It WILL kick everyone who spends their entire career/life fighting for the same chance that’s just handed to BCS programs OUT of the highest level of college sports forever. And that’s why I’m against it. The BCS is already trying to slam the door in the faces of the other 22% now via the CFP, NET rankings, scheduling policies, etc.


Do I think players deserve likeness rights and revenue sharing? Hell yes. But there has to be safeguards in place. Take a revenue slice of EVERY college program in Division I, throw it in a kitty and give it to EVERY STUDENT ATHLETE when they graduate. I’m fine with that.

Because the BCS has 90% of the money and they’ll have to foot 90% of that bill. But don’t do things that deny 78% of Division I sports the chance to ever compete with in an NCAA Tournament. Because that’s literally the dream of every Division I athlete, and you’re going to end up crushing the dream of 90,000 athletes just so the 7,500 who already get to live the dream get paid. And that’s just wrong.

 

[Kimi]

And here's where the argument falls apart! The players aren't bringing in the revenue and I can prove it.

Two best RBs in the 2008 college draft class: Chris Johnson and Matt Forte. Jamaal Charles was pretty good, but they were way better than Darren McFadden and Rashad Mendenhall.

Mendenhall (Illinois) played in front of 54,000 per game -- $13.5 million NFL earnings.
Johnson (ECU) played in front of 40,000 a game -- $47 million NFL earnings.
Forte (Tulane) played in front of 12,000 per game -- $44 million NFL earnings.
McFadden (Arkansas) played in front of 72,000 per game -- $47 million in NFL earnings
Charles (Texas) played in front of 85,000 per game -- $42 million in NFL earnings.

If you traded any of those players to any other team, Tulane still averages 12,000, Texas 85,000, and Arkansas, Illinois, East Carolina the same. They're interchangeable.

There’s zero correlation between how good those RBs were and the attendance of the college football programs they play for. Tulane had an NFL All-Pro Running Back — probably the best player in the history of their program — and they didn’t suddenly start selling out the Superdome. It was still a ghost town.

What about Tim Tebow and Joe Flacco? You trade Tebow to Delaware for Flacco, they’re still selling out the Swamp and drawing 8,000 at Delaware.


The individual player does nothing for ticket sales. The BRAND of the program sells the tickets, and they sell the tickets by being a program that has a roster full of 5-star and 4-star recruits. Who each recruit is actually doesn’t doesn’t matter.

You trade Zion Williamson from Duke to Gonzaga for Rui Hachimura, both programs attendance will be the same because they sell out every game. You trade some scrub from Arkansas Little Rock for some scrub at Loyola Marymount, their attendance stays the same. The name on the front is more important than the name on the back.

So what? All this is meaningless.

The fact that the players are interchangeable doesn't matter. If you have no players, there is no team and no money. If they have players, then they have a team and there is money. The schools need players to make money, thus the players are worth a lot of money and should be given their fair share of it.

 

[AmericanDream]

I am happy for this...this is a baby step of hopeful many more to come. Sick and tired of seeing billions of dollars going into the pockets of these schools, their coaches, admin, etc..off the backs of hard working athletes. Not every athlete makes it to the show, so many never even graduate but have helped many of these programs make millions. Now think about those that get hurt, give up their bodies after massive injuries on the field/court/ice..and they get nothing from it?? Where do you think all of these concussions also come from, did they magically appear once you got to the pro ranks?? f*** no...ignore the amount of trauma that gets built up over college playing.

For as progressive as these Universities claim to be, all they simply are is slave labor camps, raking in billions off of kids (but hey you get a scholarship lol)...(I also was a full ride scholarship for baseball, sorry but for the sports that have billions in tv revenue and gate attendances, that scholarship means jack shit overall)..it is sickening, and like others have said, when a coach is making over $5 mil per year to coach amateurs???? bwahahahahahahaha...what a f***ing joke...

I didn't think there would ever be a time I agree with anything that California does, but this is most certainly it...the competitive balance is off and has been for decades...this is all about control, this is all about stopping the can of worms from opening..the NCAA wants to continue to profit from unpaid amateurs...and if this goes through, it is the first dent in the chain for an archaic system long overdue of actual change.

 

[cutchemist42]

Sounds like the NCAA is caving a little. Do they think they wont have a good argument?

 

[KevFu]

So what? All this is meaningless.

The fact that the players are interchangeable doesn't matter. If you have no players, there is no team and no money. If they have players, then they have a team and there is money. The schools need players to make money, thus the players are worth a lot of money and should be given their fair share of it.

You're right that "without players" there is no sports that generate revenue. But aside from the obvious "tip of the iceberg" structure of MBB and FB vs all of college sports, I'm also right in the logical equation.

The goodness of the individual player is essentially meaningless because they're interchangeable. What makes some programs more lucrative than others is the QUANTITY of the good players that they have. Alabama football draws 100,000 a game because they always have 50-85 really good football players. Who the players are actually don't matter.

So it seems pretty obvious: The players (as a collective whole, like an unofficial NCAA Student-Athlete Union" should get a cut of the revenues. But again, you take the Division I revenue, and subtract the booster dollars (kinda like HRR in hockey) and you're looking at roughly $8 billion in revenue for 353 teams, with 313,515 athletes getting $3 billion in scholarship dollars.


Now, is a 3/8th share “Fair” ?? Looking at only the tip of the iceberg (aka BCS football/men’s basketball), you’d probably say of course not.

But when you consider all the 125,000 scholarship athletes, it is, on average, pretty fair.


Especially when you consider that a lot of you were saying there’s no problem with the amount of compensation the US Women’s Soccer team gets, when they earned $34 million out of roughly $400 million in US Soccer revenue (8.5%).

They get so little because they’re a small subset of everyone in the US Soccer system.

All MBB players are less than 1.5% of NCAA athletes.
All FBS football players are 3.5% of NCAA athletes.


It's not "unfair" and saying anyone besides 75 ADs, 75 basketball and 75 football coaches are "getting rich" off of NCAA athletes is narrow-minded and stupid.

 

[PhillyWings]

NFLPA joining name, image, likeness movement - FootballScoop

On Monday, the NFL Players Association announced it is partnering with the National College Players Association and REP Worldwide to help college athletes take themselves to market.

 

[triggrman]

NCAA still runs the clearing house for athletes. If they deem the person to ineligible because of a NCAA rule or guideline, how does a California law change that? We're in the beginning of the clearing house process with my son now, he's only a freshman but man there are a lot of guildlines.

 

[David Dennison]

NCAA still runs the clearing house for athletes. If they deem the person to ineligible because of a NCAA rule or guideline, how does a California law change that? We're in the beginning of the clearing house process with my son now, he's only a freshman but man there are a lot of guildlines.

Could give a specific example of a clearinghouse rule that might contradict the Cali law? I don't know if it's relevant to the conversation but I am curious what the NCAA thinks improper payments to high school athletes would be. Good luck to your kid though.

The long and short of it is that any attempt by the NCAA to restrict players going to Cali schools would be restricting interstate commerce, which they don't have the leg authority to do. Cali would sue and probably win.

Its a poison pill for the NCAA: it either forces the NCAA to change their rules about profiting from your likeness or forces them to overstep their authority to try and enforce their rules.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Breaking news suggests the NCAA has caved.

 

[TeddyBare]

I think the NCAA had to

When you see Nick Saban in commercials for Aflack and all this other stuff it was just stupid that he got that endorsements off of the players hard work.

 

[Beauner]

Breaking news suggests the NCAA has caved.

Certainly looks like it. I think this is the best compromise outside of straight up paying the players. Allows players to make what they deserve as determined by the market. So someone like Zion will make much more than a D1 golfer for example, as it should be

I think the NCAA had to

When you see Nick Saban in commercials for Aflack and all this other stuff it was just stupid that he got that endorsements off of the players hard work.

To be fair he works plenty hard himself. But yes the players work hard as well and deserve credit.

 

[David Dennison]

The statement about the board action did not provide specifics, but said the changes should occur within the principles and guidelines that include:
►Assure student-athletes are treated similarly to non-athlete students unless a compelling reason exists to differentiate.
►Maintain the priorities of education and the collegiate experience to provide opportunities for student-athlete success.
►Ensure rules are transparent, focused and enforceable and facilitate fair and balanced competition.
►Make clear the distinction between collegiate and professional opportunities.
►Make clear that compensation for athletics performance or participation is impermissible.
►Reaffirm that student-athletes are students first and not employees of the university.

NCAA Board of Governors opens door to athletes benefiting from name, image and likeness

Incredibly vague but The NCAA didn't have much of a legal leg to stand on.

 

[tarheelhockey]

 

[tarheelhockey]

I think the NCAA had to

When you see Nick Saban in commercials for Aflack and all this other stuff it was just stupid that he got that endorsements off of the players hard work.

I imagine there must have been a critical moment where their attorneys had to walk them through what the lawsuit would actually look like and how the courts would receive their arguments. “Everyone should make huge cash profits except for the people doing the work and risking injury” doesn’t sound super great.

 

[Beauner]

Chances we'll now see a players association like the pro sports? Would there be an association for each sport? Like a CFBPA or NCAAMBBPA? Or would it just be one body to represent everyone?

 

[TeddyBare]

To be fair he works plenty hard himself. But yes the players work hard as well and deserve credit.

Yeah for sure he works hard, and I am not going to criticize his salary at the university as that is different story.

But the endorsements of coaches in Div 1 Basketball and Football is what had to have tipped these scales somewhat.

 

[Beauner]

Yeah for sure he works hard, and I am not going to criticize his salary at the university as that is different story.

But the endorsements of coaches in Div 1 Basketball and Football is what had to have tipped these scales somewhat.

Agreed. When the highest paid public employees of how many states are football coaches (on top of all the endoresments)....

 

[PhillyWings]

Please delete if this has already been posted it.

The NCAA will allow athletes to profit from their name, image, and likeness in a major shift for the organization

 

[David Dennison]

Devil is in the details.

 

[Breakers]

This is relevant more or less to "headcount" scholarships and sports. (basketball and football)
It should be interesting to see how this plays out with current contracts
eg. Nike or Jumpman pays a FORTUNE to be Michigan's supplier $200 million, so it will be interesting to see how competing brands with players and everything are combined.

 

[triggrman]

Could give a specific example of a clearinghouse rule that might contradict the Cali law? I don't know if it's relevant to the conversation but I am curious what the NCAA thinks improper payments to high school athletes would be. Good luck to your kid though.

The long and short of it is that any attempt by the NCAA to restrict players going to Cali schools would be restricting interstate commerce, which they don't have the leg authority to do. Cali would sue and probably win.

Its a poison pill for the NCAA: it either forces the NCAA to change their rules about profiting from your likeness or forces them to overstep their authority to try and enforce their rules.

There's not one currently. So if Alabama passes a law stating their colleges and universities no longer require foreign languages for admission, would the NCAA also have to cave on that?

I have no answer, I just asking the question.

I'm neither for nor against this. My son plays baseball there's not much money allotted for baseball in D1, only 11.7 scholarships per team.

 

[BKIslandersFan]

This is relevant more or less to "headcount" scholarships and sports. (basketball and football)
It should be interesting to see how this plays out with current contracts
eg. Nike or Jumpman pays a FORTUNE to be Michigan's supplier $200 million, so it will be interesting to see how competing brands with players and everything are combined.

Thats what happens in NFL and NBA now. So what?