NCAA reacts to california athlete compensation bill

[Ozclone]

So they can make everyone else around them millions but they can’t? And for what reason?

Gosh, I don't know, maybe to cover the costs of wrestling, or track, or cross country, or softball, or.... You do realize that athletic departments are non-profit, right?

Maybe because they love the sport, or want a free education, or,,,

Maybe because keeping pay to play out of it means that there is a more level playing field than if it is just based on who can bankroll the biggest payroll.

If you want to watch pro sports, watch pro sports.

 

[Cyclone.TV]

Gosh, I don't know, maybe to cover the costs of wrestling, or track, or cross country, or softball, or.... You do realize that athletic departments are non-profit, right?

Maybe because they love the sport, or want a free education, or,,,

Maybe because keeping pay to play out of it means that there is a more level playing field than if it is just based on who can bankroll the biggest payroll.

If you want to watch pro sports, watch pro sports.

You do realize that I never suggested the athletic departments pay them, right? How do athletic depts pay for those other sports now? They just keep doing that. That was hard.

 

[Frak]

First off, the only ones who are actually preventing these kids from going pro right away are the pro leagues. It isn't the NCAA. The problem is, there is very little incentive for them to change their rules because they basically have a free farm system. And, players come into the pros with a brand, which saves those teams tons in marketing. The reason why the NBA is considering getting rid of the age requirement is that they have a vested interest in the G-League and getting just out of HS superstars will sell tickets (while not using a roster spot if the kid isn't ready).

I'm not on the side of paying players. If they did that, there would have to be some sort of pay restrictions (which would be challenged in court) and they'd also have lawsuits from Olympic sports athletes who work just as hard as FB or MBB players. If you pay players without limits, then Alabama would be paying kids $50k a year on top of tuition.

As far as name and likeness, that I would be fine with as long as it's regulated. What's stopping a booster from paying $5k for an autograph? Or a booster car dealer from giving an athlete a car for doing a commercial? As long as they reported their earnings and the NCAA had the manpower/ability to look into tax returns and investigate income that looked sketchy, maybe it would work. I'd rather have them up the cost of attendance money...even though athletes now have more spending money than the average student.

To me, it mostly comes down to competitive balance. It's bad enough now, if you give the big boys more avenues to cheat, it's only going to get worse. And once fans realize that their teams have an even lesser chance of success, that is going to lead to less eyeballs and less butts in the seats. IMO that is where the NCAA is having an issue.

 

[Clonehomer]

Rules? Like not letting someone make money when they can make money? You like that rule? That makes sense. Great logic.

If an athlete can make more money outside of the NCAA, they should. No one is forcing them to participate.

But for example, how much was Zion Williamson's likeness worth before he signed with Duke vs now? Are you really telling me that he didn't benefit from going to college? Just because he wasn't paid doesn't mean he didn't get anything out of going to school.

 

[Ozclone]

Rules? Like not letting someone make money when they can make money? You like that rule? That makes sense. Great logic.

So they can make everyone else around them millions but they can’t? And for what reason?

You do realize that I never suggested the athletic departments pay them, right? How do athletic depts pay for those other sports now? They just keep doing that. That was hard.

I can't tell what you are suggesting since you can't seem to lay out a plan that would get the athletes money without becoming a disaster.

Near as I can tell, you think that college athletes should be able to take money from "everyone else around them" with no rules that prevent them from making money "when they can make money".

I'm done, if you had a valid proposal for the athletes to take money without total chaos we might be able to have a logical discussion.

 

[Cyclone.TV]

If an athlete can make more money outside of the NCAA, they should. No one is forcing them to participate.

But for example, how much was Zion Williamson's likeness worth before he signed with Duke vs now? Are you really telling me that he didn't benefit from going to college? Just because he wasn't paid doesn't mean he didn't get anything out of going to school.

And how much money did he bring the NCAA? And Duke? His recruitment was massive. Let him sign a shoe deal. Let him do autograph signings for companies.

Of course he benefits from going to college - but so does the NCAA and the college they go to. Why can’t he provide income for his family while going to school? What is that hurting anyone?

I never said kids don’t get anything from going to school - but a lot of kids are dirt poor and so are their families (especially in college football). Why are we not allowing them to make money while they play?

 

[Cyclone.TV]

I can't tell what you are suggesting since you can't seem to lay out a plan that would get the athletes money without becoming a disaster.

Near as I can tell, you think that college athletes should be able to take money from "everyone else around them" with no rules that prevent them from making money "when they can make money".

I'm done, if you had a valid proposal for the athletes to take money without total chaos we might be able to have a logical discussion.

What plan are you looking for? They can get money from boosters, from autograph signings, from appearances...they can be given free stuff from companies to advertise. Ya know, just like any normal person could if someone wanted to give it to them.

What chaos does that do other than maybe “making other colleges better than my college at sports”. If it blew up the ncaa and college sports as we know it, then I’m ok with that. It’s already a sham to begin with. The notion that “Alabama will only get better” is absolutely ridiculous to me. Who cares? When has that mattered over the past 100 years? And to be honest, I really don’t think they would. But if that’s what you’re worried about, then go ahead.

 

[ArgentCy]

And how much money did he bring the NCAA? And Duke? His recruitment was massive. Let him sign a shoe deal. Let him do autograph signings for companies.

Of course he benefits from going to college - but so does the NCAA and the college they go to. Why can’t he provide income for his family while going to school? What is that hurting anyone?

I never said kids don’t get anything from going to school - but a lot of kids are dirt poor and so are their families (especially in college football). Why are we not allowing them to make money while they play?

Because they created this idea called amateur. I think most of the push back is that people think more money means competition suffers. But I would ask which league is more balanced the NCAA or NFL?

 

[Mr Janny]

And how much money did he bring the NCAA? And Duke? His recruitment was massive. Let him sign a shoe deal. Let him do autograph signings for companies.

Of course he benefits from going to college - but so does the NCAA and the college they go to. Why can’t he provide income for his family while going to school? What is that hurting anyone?

I never said kids don’t get anything from going to school - but a lot of kids are dirt poor and so are their families (especially in college football). Why are we not allowing them to make money while they play?

This. Shoe companies have massive deals with schools. Huge amounts of money are being paid to universities, why? It's because of the players. They want to secure access to the players so they have a better chance of signing them when they go pro. And as we've seen in recent trials, the shoe companies are totally willing to go to great lengths to sign these kids. Get it above board. Let the kid sign with the shoe company if they want to and are able. It's already happening anyway. There's no stopping that.

 

[Cyclone.TV]

Because they created this idea called amateur. I think most of the push back is that people think more money means competition suffers. But I would ask which league is more balanced the NCAA or NFL?

You could almost argue they are sorta alike in that sense, when the NFL can create dynasties. The playing field is a lot more even tho with salary caps. Teams can move up and down far easier in the NFL than in college. I think that’s been proven over time. There are dozens of schools who will never win a national title in football. Just impossible given the landscape of college football right now.

 

[BWRhasnoAC]

This. Shoe companies have massive deals with schools. Huge amounts of money are being paid to universities, why? It's because of the players. They want to secure access to the players so they have a better chance of signing them when they go pro. And as we've seen in recent trials, the shoe companies are totally willing to go to great lengths to sign these kids. Get it above board. Let the kid sign with the shoe company if they want to and are able. It's already happening anyway. There's no stopping that.

Olympic athletes can and do have endorsements already.

 

[VeloClone]

Because they created this idea called amateur. I think most of the push back is that people think more money means competition suffers. But I would ask which league is more balanced the NCAA or NFL?

Which league has a draft to artificially balance the talent available to each team?

Parity has everything to do with the draft and salary caps and nothing to do with amateur v. pro.

 

[Cyclone.TV]

Which league has a draft to artificially balance the talent available to each team?

Parity has everything to do with the draft and salary caps and nothing to do with amateur v. pro.

And parity will never happen in college football, because it sure hasn't happened yet.

 

[VeloClone]

And parity will never happen in college football, because it sure hasn't happened yet.

Never said it would. Just refuting that the money in the pro leagues leads to parity as was implied in Argent's post I quoted.

 

[CNECloneFan]

Which league has a draft to artificially balance the talent available to each team?

Parity has everything to do with the draft and salary caps and nothing to do with amateur v. pro.

Actually, paying college players, but also having a draft to screw over the Alabamas and Clemsons Ohio States etc., is kind of interesting to think about.

I wouldn't want it, but even so.

 

[kcdc4isu]

And parity will never happen in college football, because it sure hasn't happened yet.

And if you start allowing schools to pay players it will be even worse. You will never see us even getting near a conference championship on into the playoffs.

 

[Cyclone.TV]

And if you start allowing schools to pay players it will be even worse. You will never see us even getting near a conference championship on into the playoffs.

Well we better not pay those kids, then. Wouldn’t want to do that to you.

 

[Clonehomer]

And how much money did he bring the NCAA? And Duke? His recruitment was massive. Let him sign a shoe deal. Let him do autograph signings for companies.

Of course he benefits from going to college - but so does the NCAA and the college they go to. Why can’t he provide income for his family while going to school? What is that hurting anyone?

I never said kids don’t get anything from going to school - but a lot of kids are dirt poor and so are their families (especially in college football). Why are we not allowing them to make money while they play?

Because then Nike and Adidas would completely run college sports instead of just being involved under the table. Kids wouldn't commit to the school, they'd commit to the brand and then go wherever that brand wants them to.

I'd like to see a general fund setup that is funded by jersey sales and licensing fees that pays out to student athletes evenly, but I just think that direct payments to certain players will further push college athletics towards professional sports.

 

[Cyclone.TV]

Because then Nike and Adidas would completely run college sports instead of just being involved under the table. Kids wouldn't commit to the school, they'd commit to the brand and then go wherever that brand wants them to.

I'd like to see a general fund setup that is funded by jersey sales and licensing fees that pays out to student athletes evenly, but I just think that direct payments to certain players will further push college athletics towards professional sports.

So it's happening already and it would then somehow get worse? I don't know if you've seen the recruiting rankings lately, but it's the same teams at the top nearly every year. Why would that change?