Supreme court rules for college athletes
- Thread starter PhillyWings
- Start date
cutchemist42
Registered User
KevFu
Registered User
I'm sure I bored everyone to death in the other thread.
People don't realize that the NCAA's rules are what they are because they were made decades before anyone gave a damn about the marketing of athletes.
The goal of the rules was never to prevent players from making money. The goal of the rules was always to prevent SCHOOLS from BUYING PLAYERS as a competitive advantage. The rules are not to keep the players in check financially, but to keep the SCHOOLS in check recruiting wise.
People don't realize that the NCAA's rules are what they are because they were made decades before anyone gave a damn about the marketing of athletes.
The goal of the rules was never to prevent players from making money. The goal of the rules was always to prevent SCHOOLS from BUYING PLAYERS as a competitive advantage. The rules are not to keep the players in check financially, but to keep the SCHOOLS in check recruiting wise.
cutchemist42
Registered User
In the end the Supreme Court was very scathing of the NCAA. Kavanaughs response at the end was a brutal takedown of the institution legally. They have to know they will forever be on the losing end of any legal attempts going forward.
The Kavanaugh wording was basically an encouraging dog whistle for anyone else who wants to legally challenge the NCAA. The Supreme Court will be on their side.
The Kavanaugh wording was basically an encouraging dog whistle for anyone else who wants to legally challenge the NCAA. The Supreme Court will be on their side.
Last edited:
LeHab
Registered User
- Aug 31, 2005
- 15,957
- 6,259
Cracks are getting bigger and bigger. Only hope for NCAA seems to be Congress to minimize damage.
KevFu
Registered User
The problem will all the NCAA's issues is that the NCAA as an organization is nothing more than an empty room where the members vote on stuff. The actual control is with the members. And because the members who are the richest have the most power, they set the rules.
Everyone talking about the players being compensated and ending amateurism is viewing the debate was "Worker vs Owner," like the players are Amazon Warehouse Workers and "The NCAA" is Amazon.
But that's no where near the case. If the players are the warehouse workers.... The SEC, the Big Ten, the ACC and Big XII are Amazon. The Pac-12 is a lesser Amazon. The American and Mountain West are a different company with half the revenue. The Big East is Uber, which doesn't have as massive revenues as Amazon but also not the overhead. The Atlantic 10 is similar but smaller, like Drizly. And you have 18 conferences that basically Etsy shops.
And wholesale sweeping changes forced onto college sports by people who ONLY SEE college sports as "schools like Michigan, Ohio State, Florida, LSU, Alabama, Texas, Clemson" and don't consider what it does to UCF, New Mexico, Creighton, Davidson, Pepperdine, Morehead State, Lipscomb, Stetson, Alabama State and North Carolina A&T.... are going to accidentally destroy things for schools that don't have massive TV deals.
Everyone talking about the players being compensated and ending amateurism is viewing the debate was "Worker vs Owner," like the players are Amazon Warehouse Workers and "The NCAA" is Amazon.
But that's no where near the case. If the players are the warehouse workers.... The SEC, the Big Ten, the ACC and Big XII are Amazon. The Pac-12 is a lesser Amazon. The American and Mountain West are a different company with half the revenue. The Big East is Uber, which doesn't have as massive revenues as Amazon but also not the overhead. The Atlantic 10 is similar but smaller, like Drizly. And you have 18 conferences that basically Etsy shops.
And wholesale sweeping changes forced onto college sports by people who ONLY SEE college sports as "schools like Michigan, Ohio State, Florida, LSU, Alabama, Texas, Clemson" and don't consider what it does to UCF, New Mexico, Creighton, Davidson, Pepperdine, Morehead State, Lipscomb, Stetson, Alabama State and North Carolina A&T.... are going to accidentally destroy things for schools that don't have massive TV deals.
KevFu
Registered User
If there was a union of players, negotiating a CBA with the NCAA -- like many people seem to want -- that is all find and good, and fantastic.
The problem is that while the NHL lost an entire season because getting the union to agree to terms with 30 owners ranging from rich Leafs to poor Coyotes couldn't possibly work without creating revenue sharing.... the NCAA has 353 "owners" ranging from the rich Texas (same revenue as THE LEAFS) to the poor Alabama A&M, who have a budget the size of Leo Komarov's annual cap hit; and no revenue sharing.
And good luck convincing the 22% of schools that have 90% of the money to agree to a revenue sharing structure that support the other 78% of Division I.
The problem is that while the NHL lost an entire season because getting the union to agree to terms with 30 owners ranging from rich Leafs to poor Coyotes couldn't possibly work without creating revenue sharing.... the NCAA has 353 "owners" ranging from the rich Texas (same revenue as THE LEAFS) to the poor Alabama A&M, who have a budget the size of Leo Komarov's annual cap hit; and no revenue sharing.
And good luck convincing the 22% of schools that have 90% of the money to agree to a revenue sharing structure that support the other 78% of Division I.
PCSPounder
Stadium Groupie
You’re looking at the NCAA as if all these schools deserve equal footing. That’ll never happen. The TV money wants the big schools and really has little reason to support the G5 and anyone below. And… if you raise your attention from the field or court to the stands, people have been voting with their feet not to support a LOT of these schools for at least a decade if not more. This is also true of some of the lower P5 programs, for that matter.
In the case of college athletics, I’ve learned that it’s really better to compare schools more to your average European league with pro/rel than to American pros, especially for football. For that matter, if you follow how college football economics works, you’ll realize that the big schools ARE essentially subsidizing lower P5, most G5, and even some FCS schools. There’s not the demand for 100 truly broadcast-worthy programs. There’s not demand for athletics at an increasing number of these schools… especially ones where the students foot a substantial portion of the bill. That happens at a considerable number of G5 schools.
BTW, I started an even longer story, but my modality tends to time out. IOW I can go on for hours about this.
KevFu
Registered User
No, f*** that shit. Big football schools suck at basketball and the best basketball schools suck at football. It's luck and circumstance and a numbers game. The P5 supports the G5... no. That is stupid garbage. Most the P5 absolutely suck at both sports. It's all just happenstance that they are in the same conference based on decisions 100 years ago when no one thought of sports as an entertainment business, and in the 90s, a TV network threw a ton of money at them.
PCSPounder
Stadium Groupie
I didn’t mean to cause a swear-fest. But damn.
That was the past and, to some degree, the present. Football schools have the revenue to try to change this in the future. Meanwhile, Gonzaga has no illusions of restarting their football program 80 years after they abandoned it.
The NCAA hasn’t initiated a commission to improve football revenue. They initiated a commission many moons ago to improve basketball revenue. Basketball is a cash cow for the NCAA, not the schools. The schools rolling in athletic money are football schools and it’s not even close.
Schools pay 6 or 7-figure guarantees to host another school for out-of-conference football games. The number of times a P5 school travels to play AT a G5 school is, shall we say, very rare, and those are usually part of a 2-for-1 deal, even for the poorer P5 schools. The bad P5 schools are still getting good TV money because of those cozy conference relationships. A good Boise State program will get one or two of those 2-for-1s and also benefit from a TV deal that has the rest of the Mountain West Conference quite jealous… and even then the previous Boise coach wanted the school to jump to the American because the Mountain West has too many bottom-feeders for his liking. Meanwhile, the Mountain West almost grew a pair by asking Boise State to share more of the difference between the school’s ESPN contract and the rest of the conference’s paltry intake.
(Lived in Idaho for 15 long years. Saw Boise State jump from the Big Sky to the Big West to the WAC to the Mountain West while almost joining the Big East before that split. What a ride.)
Meanwhile, I’m watching Portland State keep their football program alive by getting two FBS paychecks per year, which hinders their ability to win Big Sky games. The AD kind of slipped a couple months ago by admitting that she signed contracts with heavy penalties for breaking them, making it harder for the school administration to cut football. Yet there’s no consideration to fire her because they don’t care that much and there are bigger problems to tackle… which might very well be a good thing.
That was the past and, to some degree, the present. Football schools have the revenue to try to change this in the future. Meanwhile, Gonzaga has no illusions of restarting their football program 80 years after they abandoned it.
The NCAA hasn’t initiated a commission to improve football revenue. They initiated a commission many moons ago to improve basketball revenue. Basketball is a cash cow for the NCAA, not the schools. The schools rolling in athletic money are football schools and it’s not even close.
Schools pay 6 or 7-figure guarantees to host another school for out-of-conference football games. The number of times a P5 school travels to play AT a G5 school is, shall we say, very rare, and those are usually part of a 2-for-1 deal, even for the poorer P5 schools. The bad P5 schools are still getting good TV money because of those cozy conference relationships. A good Boise State program will get one or two of those 2-for-1s and also benefit from a TV deal that has the rest of the Mountain West Conference quite jealous… and even then the previous Boise coach wanted the school to jump to the American because the Mountain West has too many bottom-feeders for his liking. Meanwhile, the Mountain West almost grew a pair by asking Boise State to share more of the difference between the school’s ESPN contract and the rest of the conference’s paltry intake.
(Lived in Idaho for 15 long years. Saw Boise State jump from the Big Sky to the Big West to the WAC to the Mountain West while almost joining the Big East before that split. What a ride.)
Meanwhile, I’m watching Portland State keep their football program alive by getting two FBS paychecks per year, which hinders their ability to win Big Sky games. The AD kind of slipped a couple months ago by admitting that she signed contracts with heavy penalties for breaking them, making it harder for the school administration to cut football. Yet there’s no consideration to fire her because they don’t care that much and there are bigger problems to tackle… which might very well be a good thing.
KevFu
Registered User
Sorry for the outburst.
My objection is to the premise that the schools getting the TV money DESERVE the TV money and the schools that don't get the TV money are just bad teams. Which is absolute garbage.
There was a 100-year evolution of college sports, and the money exploded along with "Sports as a business" in the 80s.
The NCAA being foolish and short-sighted wanted to limit the number of TV games so people bought tickets, and the schools sued them for it. As such, the TV rights went to the schools instead of the NCAA. The SEC saw the rule that said "conferences with 12 teams can have a football championship game" and added South Carolina and Arkansas for 12 teams, and sold the championship game idea to CBS, who delivered a huge TV deal.
The argument that the BCS schools deserve the money for being the best teams is crap because 2/3 of each team isn't historically good, or is only good because of their membership.
For example... Alabama, LSU, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee -- are those marquee football programs that deserve a big TV deal? Sure.
Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt... they bring nothing to the table, but joined the SEC 75 years ago, so they get the same paycheck LSU gets.
Arkansas, South Carolina... not historically great football teams either; they were just necessary to create the championship game.
Kentucky is great at basketball. Auburn has a rivalry with Alabama, so that makes for good TV.
But then you pump that TV money into that conference for 30 years.... and that's what enables that scheduling monopoly you mentioned.
Those bottom half SEC teams knew they'd lose to Alabama, Florida and LSU.... so they BOUGHT home games against Louisiana Lafayette, UAB, Rice and an FCS team. So when they go 2-6 in the SEC.... that 4-0 non-conference schedule makes them 6-6 and bowl eligible.
But that 6-6 overall makes the SEC look like a really deep conference! The 5th place team in LSU's division is 6-6. And the teams that wins the non-BCS conferences... their 5th place teams on their schedule is 3-9. So Strength of Schedule, we can't let an undefeated non-BCS team into the CFP.
My objection is to the premise that the schools getting the TV money DESERVE the TV money and the schools that don't get the TV money are just bad teams. Which is absolute garbage.
There was a 100-year evolution of college sports, and the money exploded along with "Sports as a business" in the 80s.
The NCAA being foolish and short-sighted wanted to limit the number of TV games so people bought tickets, and the schools sued them for it. As such, the TV rights went to the schools instead of the NCAA. The SEC saw the rule that said "conferences with 12 teams can have a football championship game" and added South Carolina and Arkansas for 12 teams, and sold the championship game idea to CBS, who delivered a huge TV deal.
The argument that the BCS schools deserve the money for being the best teams is crap because 2/3 of each team isn't historically good, or is only good because of their membership.
For example... Alabama, LSU, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee -- are those marquee football programs that deserve a big TV deal? Sure.
Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt... they bring nothing to the table, but joined the SEC 75 years ago, so they get the same paycheck LSU gets.
Arkansas, South Carolina... not historically great football teams either; they were just necessary to create the championship game.
Kentucky is great at basketball. Auburn has a rivalry with Alabama, so that makes for good TV.
But then you pump that TV money into that conference for 30 years.... and that's what enables that scheduling monopoly you mentioned.
Those bottom half SEC teams knew they'd lose to Alabama, Florida and LSU.... so they BOUGHT home games against Louisiana Lafayette, UAB, Rice and an FCS team. So when they go 2-6 in the SEC.... that 4-0 non-conference schedule makes them 6-6 and bowl eligible.
But that 6-6 overall makes the SEC look like a really deep conference! The 5th place team in LSU's division is 6-6. And the teams that wins the non-BCS conferences... their 5th place teams on their schedule is 3-9. So Strength of Schedule, we can't let an undefeated non-BCS team into the CFP.
KevFu
Registered User
And basketball works the same way. This pandemic year really showed it off. NC State went 14-11, 9-9 vs ACC teams, 4-1 in non-conference.
The previous year, they were 20-12 overall, 11-10 vs ACC teams, 9-2 vs non-conference. They BOUGHT seven guarantee games and won all 7.
The difference between a mediocre NC State team that had no chance at the NCAA Tournament, and a 20-12 NC State team that was projected to make the tournament was nothing more than inviting poor teams to come lose.
"Well, if the non-BCS teams aren't really as bad as they appear, why don't they just win their non-conference road games at BCS schools?"
Because the BCS schools strategically pick only the teams they know they can beat. When you have a team with EVERYONE coming back and everyone knows you're going to be good... BCS teams run far far away.
"The BCS supports the non-BCS by buying guarantee games" is a crock. They get $50 million each and share $3 million in guarantee games, which is basically a bribe to keep the balance of power tilted in their direction.
And if anyone transcends their second-class status, what happens? They get invited into the cartel. Like Utah, Louisville, TCU, Butler, Creighton, Wichita State.
Look at the college basketball standings in the early 90s. The 60 best teams were spread out over TWENTY-ONE conferences. For example:
ACC - Duke/UNC
Big Ten - Michigan St
Big 8 - Oklahoma
Southwest - Arkansas, Texas, Houston
SEC - Kentucky
Big East - Syracuse, UConn
Pac-10 - Arizona, UCLA
WAC - BYU, Utah
Big West - UNLV
Metro - Louisville
Midwest Collegiate - Xavier, Dayton
Missouri Valley - Wichita St, Creighton
Sun Belt - VCU, Western Kentucky, UAB
A-10 - Temple, UMass, West Virginia
Mid-Con - Northern Iowa
Colonial - Richmond
Big Sky - Nevada, Boise St
Mid-American - Marshall
So Con - Davidson
Independent - Miami, Notre Dame,
WCC - Gonzaga
Here's those exact same schools NOW, they're in 12 conferences:
ACC - Duke/UNC, Syracuse, Louisville, Miami, Notre Dame
Big Ten - Michigan St
Big 12 - Oklahoma, Texas, West Virginia
SEC - Kentucky, Arkansas
American - Wichita St, Houston, Temple,
Big East - UConn, Xavier, Creighton
Pac-12 - Arizona, UCLA, Utah
Mountain West - UNLV, Nevada, Boise St
WCC - Gonzaga, BYU
Missouri Valley - Northern Iowa
C-USA - Western Kentucky, UAB
A-10 - UMass, VCU, Richmond, Dayton, Davidson
The idea that BCS teams are "better" is circular logic. They got the TV money which made them better and allowed them to buy wins to look better, and all the recruits want to go places that spent money on facilities and play on TV
And basketball works the same way. This pandemic year really showed it off. NC State went 14-11, 9-9 vs ACC teams, 4-1 in non-conference.
The previous year, they were 20-12 overall, 11-10 vs ACC teams, 9-2 vs non-conference. They BOUGHT seven guarantee games and won all 7.
The difference between a mediocre NC State team that had no chance at the NCAA Tournament, and a 20-12 NC State team that was projected to make the tournament was nothing more than inviting poor teams to come lose.
"Well, if the non-BCS teams aren't really as bad as they appear, why don't they just win their non-conference road games at BCS schools?"
Because the BCS schools strategically pick only the teams they know they can beat. When you have a team with EVERYONE coming back and everyone knows you're going to be good... BCS teams run far far away.
The previous year, they were 20-12 overall, 11-10 vs ACC teams, 9-2 vs non-conference. They BOUGHT seven guarantee games and won all 7.
The difference between a mediocre NC State team that had no chance at the NCAA Tournament, and a 20-12 NC State team that was projected to make the tournament was nothing more than inviting poor teams to come lose.
"Well, if the non-BCS teams aren't really as bad as they appear, why don't they just win their non-conference road games at BCS schools?"
Because the BCS schools strategically pick only the teams they know they can beat. When you have a team with EVERYONE coming back and everyone knows you're going to be good... BCS teams run far far away.
"The BCS supports the non-BCS by buying guarantee games" is a crock. They get $50 million each and share $3 million in guarantee games, which is basically a bribe to keep the balance of power tilted in their direction.
And if anyone transcends their second-class status, what happens? They get invited into the cartel. Like Utah, Louisville, TCU, Butler, Creighton, Wichita State.
Look at the college basketball standings in the early 90s. The 60 best teams were spread out over TWENTY-ONE conferences. For example:
ACC - Duke/UNC
Big Ten - Michigan St
Big 8 - Oklahoma
Southwest - Arkansas, Texas, Houston
SEC - Kentucky
Big East - Syracuse, UConn
Pac-10 - Arizona, UCLA
WAC - BYU, Utah
Big West - UNLV
Metro - Louisville
Midwest Collegiate - Xavier, Dayton
Missouri Valley - Wichita St, Creighton
Sun Belt - VCU, Western Kentucky, UAB
A-10 - Temple, UMass, West Virginia
Mid-Con - Northern Iowa
Colonial - Richmond
Big Sky - Nevada, Boise St
Mid-American - Marshall
So Con - Davidson
Independent - Miami, Notre Dame,
WCC - Gonzaga
Here's those exact same schools NOW, they're in 12 conferences:
ACC - Duke/UNC, Syracuse, Louisville, Miami, Notre Dame
Big Ten - Michigan St
Big 12 - Oklahoma, Texas, West Virginia
SEC - Kentucky, Arkansas
American - Wichita St, Houston, Temple,
Big East - UConn, Xavier, Creighton
Pac-12 - Arizona, UCLA, Utah
Mountain West - UNLV, Nevada, Boise St
WCC - Gonzaga, BYU
Missouri Valley - Northern Iowa
C-USA - Western Kentucky, UAB
A-10 - UMass, VCU, Richmond, Dayton, Davidson
The idea that BCS teams are "better" is circular logic. They got the TV money which made them better and allowed them to buy wins to look better, and all the recruits want to go places that spent money on facilities and play on TV
And basketball works the same way. This pandemic year really showed it off. NC State went 14-11, 9-9 vs ACC teams, 4-1 in non-conference.
The previous year, they were 20-12 overall, 11-10 vs ACC teams, 9-2 vs non-conference. They BOUGHT seven guarantee games and won all 7.
The difference between a mediocre NC State team that had no chance at the NCAA Tournament, and a 20-12 NC State team that was projected to make the tournament was nothing more than inviting poor teams to come lose.
"Well, if the non-BCS teams aren't really as bad as they appear, why don't they just win their non-conference road games at BCS schools?"
Because the BCS schools strategically pick only the teams they know they can beat. When you have a team with EVERYONE coming back and everyone knows you're going to be good... BCS teams run far far away.
PCSPounder
Stadium Groupie
I’m not arguing who’s better. On that note, I can safely say that the biggest ticket markups you’ll find in Pacific Northwest sports is Gonzaga basketball, and maybe the Seahawks are close. We’ll see what happens with the Kraken. You leave every clue that you want this to be an argument about a system that rewards the best schools. We know what exists isn’t that.
The NCAA gives maximum deference to conferences. Especially the big ones, but even smaller conferences with membership issues that might cause a loss of standing are given plenty of space to solve problems. Otherwise, at least 30% of G5 schools would be demoted to FCS due to lack of football attendance. Conferences have power, P5 conferences have maximum power. That generally renders your comment about schools having individual bargaining power kind of moot, with Notre Dame being the glaring exception. Eh, even Notre Dame gets to bargain with the ACC most of the time.
The NCAA gives maximum deference to conferences. Especially the big ones, but even smaller conferences with membership issues that might cause a loss of standing are given plenty of space to solve problems. Otherwise, at least 30% of G5 schools would be demoted to FCS due to lack of football attendance. Conferences have power, P5 conferences have maximum power. That generally renders your comment about schools having individual bargaining power kind of moot, with Notre Dame being the glaring exception. Eh, even Notre Dame gets to bargain with the ACC most of the time.
KevFu
Registered User
I know my opinion on this topic is unpopular. But I'm right, because everyone else is looking only at the tip of the iceberg; And their "solutions" are akin to solving bribery by legalizing bribery.
No one is talking about 80% of schools aren't on TV, and NO ONE EVER talks about the SPORTS that aren't on TV. No one cares what happens to those kids.
People view the NCAA debate as one of "Workers" (Student Athletes) vs "Owners" (The NCAA) and the NCAA is violating the rules of capitalism by not paying the players. That's what the court just ruled. But that's not how college sports work, why the rules are what they are, and the value of the work provided is more than their current compensation. That last one is going to be extremely unpopular, but it's true.
There is ZERO correlation between individual talent and revenue being brought in. It's a matter of COLLECTIVE talent RELATIVE TO EVERYONE ELSE. The SCHOOL BRAND of college athletics is what brings in the revenue, and that brand is based on "the ability to consistently bring in the highest volume of good recruits."
Perfect example: UConn women's basketball. They draw 9,000 more per game than the WNBA's Connecticut Sun. The WNBA product is better. Every WNBA player is in the top 1% of college players and most of UConn's opponents have 13 women not good enough for the WNBA. But the people of the SAME MARKET are buying far more tickets to see THEIR ALMA MATER dominate Division I, than to watch "the most talented women's basketball players."
Compare the G-League and D-I basketball. After the NBA takes 50 players in the Draft, the G-League drafted 25 guys from college. That's players 51-75 out of 4589 Division I basketball players (the top 1.6%).
2,465 per game attend G-League games. NCAA Division I men's basketball averaged 6,456 per game for 351 schools in 2018-19. The G-League average is about the same as the Florida A&M men's team attendance. Everyone in the G-League is a better basketball player than anyone on Florida A&M. But no one has allegiance to a G-League team. They have an allegiance to their alma mater.
Players drafted by the G-League make $35,000 (some meals, no housing).
The NCAA players make: Tuition, Room and Board with an average value of $38,000 (less for public schools, more for private schools).
So the compensation for the NCAA is actually better for the bottom 98 percentile than the 99th percentile will go on to earn in the G-League.
And of course, the players willingly enter into the agreement to take that compensation and abide by NCAA rules.... because they have no one willing to compensate them to play basketball. Anyone who CAN find someone willing to pay them to play basketball is free to do so.
No one is talking about 80% of schools aren't on TV, and NO ONE EVER talks about the SPORTS that aren't on TV. No one cares what happens to those kids.
People view the NCAA debate as one of "Workers" (Student Athletes) vs "Owners" (The NCAA) and the NCAA is violating the rules of capitalism by not paying the players. That's what the court just ruled. But that's not how college sports work, why the rules are what they are, and the value of the work provided is more than their current compensation. That last one is going to be extremely unpopular, but it's true.
There is ZERO correlation between individual talent and revenue being brought in. It's a matter of COLLECTIVE talent RELATIVE TO EVERYONE ELSE. The SCHOOL BRAND of college athletics is what brings in the revenue, and that brand is based on "the ability to consistently bring in the highest volume of good recruits."
Perfect example: UConn women's basketball. They draw 9,000 more per game than the WNBA's Connecticut Sun. The WNBA product is better. Every WNBA player is in the top 1% of college players and most of UConn's opponents have 13 women not good enough for the WNBA. But the people of the SAME MARKET are buying far more tickets to see THEIR ALMA MATER dominate Division I, than to watch "the most talented women's basketball players."
Compare the G-League and D-I basketball. After the NBA takes 50 players in the Draft, the G-League drafted 25 guys from college. That's players 51-75 out of 4589 Division I basketball players (the top 1.6%).
2,465 per game attend G-League games. NCAA Division I men's basketball averaged 6,456 per game for 351 schools in 2018-19. The G-League average is about the same as the Florida A&M men's team attendance. Everyone in the G-League is a better basketball player than anyone on Florida A&M. But no one has allegiance to a G-League team. They have an allegiance to their alma mater.
Players drafted by the G-League make $35,000 (some meals, no housing).
The NCAA players make: Tuition, Room and Board with an average value of $38,000 (less for public schools, more for private schools).
So the compensation for the NCAA is actually better for the bottom 98 percentile than the 99th percentile will go on to earn in the G-League.
And of course, the players willingly enter into the agreement to take that compensation and abide by NCAA rules.... because they have no one willing to compensate them to play basketball. Anyone who CAN find someone willing to pay them to play basketball is free to do so.
KevFu
Registered User
Now, you want to say that "Every scholarship should be full ride and cover not only Tuition, room, board, books (it does cover books), but also any school related expense; AND all athletes should have 24/7 access to dining accommodations as part of their meal plans?" I'm totally all for that. That would actually HELP PEOPLE.
But paying college players is going to be catastrophic for far more college players than are going to profit.
The system is currently a socialist system within a school, where the rich sports (Football, Basketball) pay for the non-revenue sports to compete, have fun, get an education and room, board, free gear, etc.
When you bring Capitalist Darwinism into the school level, where each school is PAYING A PAYROLL for players, they are going to start cutting non-revenue programs left and right, cutting under-performing players and devoting as much of their budgets as they can to PAYROLL.
And the people who will profit the most from this will be... the exact same guys who are just playing a year or three of college sports before getting paid by the NBA or NFL.
But paying college players is going to be catastrophic for far more college players than are going to profit.
The system is currently a socialist system within a school, where the rich sports (Football, Basketball) pay for the non-revenue sports to compete, have fun, get an education and room, board, free gear, etc.
When you bring Capitalist Darwinism into the school level, where each school is PAYING A PAYROLL for players, they are going to start cutting non-revenue programs left and right, cutting under-performing players and devoting as much of their budgets as they can to PAYROLL.
And the people who will profit the most from this will be... the exact same guys who are just playing a year or three of college sports before getting paid by the NBA or NFL.
BigBadBruins7708
Registered User
One thing most people aren't considering as well is the tax implications for the student athletes.
In the blink of an eye, all that scholarship money/room and board/meal plan/travel/training becomes taxable income/benefits in the eyes of the government. Now you'll have thousands of student athletes on the hook for some hefty tax bills without having any actual income to pay it, or the colleges get the bill if its considered employee benefits
Last edited:
Well you do have to wonder how they aren't a)considered professional, and b)considered employees, when in a large number of cases, athletes have to pursue a different major than they want because the classes they need conflict with practice.
But you'll never see that happen. Too many congresscritters still have the old alma mater top of mind, and there is a big voting bloc. They'll find a way to slip something in to exempt student athletes.
mouser
Business of Hockey
One of the biggest issues I’d wish they address. If you have a scholarship as a student athlete the school shouldn’t be railroading you into “easier” degree programs that won’t conflict with athletics.
I know when Kain Colter brought forward his application looking to unionize, that was one of the main points. He couldn't do the classes for pre-med he wanted to because of the need for being at practice.
It really illustrates how people really don't care about anything other than the on-field performance. Which, while fine, should not be something using the resources of an educational institution, IMHO. Because if it's really about the whole "student-athlete experience," then people need to care about these things as well. Rather than being simply a cheap weed out system for the NFL.
cutchemist42
Registered User
Yeah I'm sorry but as Canadian who knows many people who played on teams with no scholarships or partial ones, I really dont care about the "but think about the other sports and those scholarships".
In the end the Supreme Court destroyed the organization in its argument concerning its legality.
Do the people vouching for the NCAA simply wish they looked the other way and kept the illegal activity going? Do you simply disagree with the legal take?
In the end the Supreme Court destroyed the organization in its argument concerning its legality.
Do the people vouching for the NCAA simply wish they looked the other way and kept the illegal activity going? Do you simply disagree with the legal take?
KevFu
Registered User
OH MY GOD.
I've been arguing with people on this topic for pretty much a decade and that never occurred to me, even though I once turned down a "Free MBA" because I could not afford the taxes on tuition remission when I was an employee of a school, and warned one of my mentees about that issue a decade later.
That's the silver bullet right there. That's the unguarded Thermal Exhaust Port leading to the Death Star Reactor of the "Pay Student Athletes" argument.
KevFu
Registered User
Right. That's how it has evolved over time to the point where instead of "Students, who pick a school for their educational path, and oh, play a sport because the sport provides them with the scholarship." And it got that way because of the money involved, which came about due to TV contracts in the 90s.
The sports cart has been put infront of the educational horse. AND THAT IS BAD. Every knows it.
But here's one of my major points the entire time: Paying student-athletes creates a legal status for them that SPORTS IS THEIR JOB, and that is saying "The cart BELONGS in front of the horse" when it most certainly does not.
KevFu
Registered User
I think you're just looking at it from a completely different angle. If the compensation of student-athletes is "illegal" than so is every grad assistant, teaching assistant, internship and residency. And there'd be a massive shortage of medical professionals because no one could afford to train people to become doctors any more. Anyone pursuing a paid career in sports is totally free to pick a path that offers cash compensation for their talents. And if they can't find one, they can college paid for if they're good enough at sports.
And I think the example of Colter is another prime example of how people look at this whole thing from a completely backwards view: Everyone looks at the Big Ten, with their own TV Network, and sees that a Wide Receiver on their team can't take his pre-med classes and play football as a sign that "The NCAA" prioritizes SPORTS over education and these kids really aren't students, they're just there to make money for the athletics department....
It's a very easy view to take when you see "The NCAA" as only the Big Ten, SEC, ACC, Big XII and Pac-12. Because THEY ARE chasing the money. But there are 278 other Division I schools, and a thousand D-II and D-III schools where that doesn't happen. If you can't take pre-med classes and play football at the same time, YOU PICKED THE WRONG SCHOOL.
If you can get a Big Ten scholarship to be a WR, you can get a football scholarship from literally anywhere else. Like Rice, or Tulane, which are much smaller schools and therefore have better relationships between athletics and university, and you're not going to be treated that way. Or UC Davis, where they don't play at the same level of football, so the mission isn't "Football comes first."
except the G-league is honest . It existance is about developing NBA players . These are educational institutions who existance is and should be higher education not running quasi pro sport teams.
then all schools should elimante there athletic departments and make them student run club teams.
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
GDT: Around the League 2023-24: The Marathon Becomes A Sprint- Latest: Behind Enemy Lines
-
-
