College Athlete Bill of Rights . . . proposed legislation . . .

[BParkDog]

Blumenthal and Booker are co-sponsoring legislation that would, if enacted, do many things, among which would be obligatory revenue sharing.

I think it's high time that the men and women who are making millions of dollars for Universities get some of the mullah that they are earning for the University.

I don't buy the, "they are getting a free education" argument (which really means, "a free college degree," because you can get a "free" education using a 100 dollar tablet and Google at your local TarBucks) because the value that, for example, Zion Williamson brought to Duke far exceeds the nominal cost of his degree.

Little more local - what Kemba Walker gave to us is far more than what we gave to him.

I do have concerns that this proposed legislation could go too far - I agree with revenue sharing for athletes who produce revenue - but I can see this getting out of hand, which could result in wealth redistribution from the revenue producers to the non-revenue producers, which would be just abuse of the athlete again, but this time for the gain of his/her non-revenue producing peers instead of greedy Trustees.

In any event, it's high time - the college system has been abusing student athletes for 100 years. Kill the old system and bring in something better.

 

[McLovin]

Here’s what I’ve always thought would be an easy and fair way to compensate revenue producing athletes, because I do believe those who bring the university money deserve to share in that revenue.

Put the money the players earn in a trust. When the player earns their degree & graduates, they get full access to that money. If the player leaves early (to pursue professional career, transfers, quits sports, etc.) they forfeit that money.

Revenue share should be pretty easy to calculate, in theory. Jersey and merchandise sales using the players likeness is easy. TV / other revenue is tougher to calculate, but they could base it off minutes played. The star players, who play more minutes, get a bigger piece of pie than the 10th man on the bench. Non revenue producing sports (crew, soccer, field hockey, etc.) don’t get paid if they don’t produce revenue. Their compensation is the free education.

Doing it this way rewards those who earn degrees. Kemba, would have received his revenue share because he graduated. Zion would have forfeited his revenue share because he chose to leave early to pursue more lucrative professional opportunities.

 

[Chin Diesel]

This will have the immediate effect of reducing total number of sports and scholarships at a school. Most schools have 1-2 players who are getting screwed on revenue they generate and their getting screwed supports many more athletes taking advantage of it.

I could care less which way this goes. I don't think anything passed will look anything like what is proposed and I am most certain that those athletic department who are in the best position to excel now will be in an even stronger position if this legislation is passed.

Be honest and be eyes wide open on what is happening and save the faux rage when this decimates the academic opportunities for way more students than it helps financially for a few at the top.

 

[CL82]

Little more local - what Kemba Walker gave to us is far more than what we gave to him.

You might want to ask Kemba about that. He's very appreciative of his time here.

 

[Scot-e]

Hope it can help some families of kids that could use it while they are in school. There has to be a way that they can do some good by spreading the wealth. At the very least it hopefully will make the NCAA less powerful and redirect some of that money to the kids who deserve it more then those wankers.

 

[QDOG5]

Put the money the players earn in a trust. When the player earns their degree & graduates, they get full access to that money. If the player leaves early (to pursue professional career, transfers, quits sports, etc.) they forfeit that money.

Why attach strings? Where does the forfeited money go? I don't know where this is headed but requiring a degree before distribution or a forfeiture of moneys earned are horrible, punitive ideas. Do you work for the NCAA?

 

[UConnSwag11]

Do you think they’re not looking for another form of taxation?

 

[UConnSwag11]

Geno said he’s all for paying athletes. But he gets to fire them too since they’ll be employees now

 

[CTBasketball]

This’ll end well for the smaller Olympic sports...

 

[Austin316]

I always thought doing this would increase the gap between the power 5 and everyone else...

 

[Chin Diesel]

I always thought doing this would increase the gap between the power 5 and everyone else...

It will.

 

[Palatine]

Little more local - what Kemba Walker gave to us is far more than what we gave to him.

What about the rest of the roster? Do we have to pay Mercedes prices for Camry's? How many Kemba's play for all the colleges in Connecticut? Just remember, whenever government touches anything it gets worse.

BTW, Kemba seems to have made out just fine.

 

[UCTitleTown]

Unfortunately, it won't start right away. I was hoping my kid would get pazzaid..... $$$$$$

 

[UconnU]

We already have semi-pro sports and no one watches it. Out of the 1,200 schools with athletic departments around the country only like 15-20 make money on any given year and that is only because of football. Wouldn’t it make more sense to just allow the kids to go pro at any point? It effectively accomplishes the same thing.

 

[gtcam]

As with everything NCAA - this will help the schools that are in P5 and who the NCAA bows down to politically
This will do nothing positive for the other schools
I don't like this idea at all - never have
The schools are a place where the best players use to eat free and park their stuff for Aug - April (basketballers).
At the non P5 and smaller D1 schools the kids receive scholarships and actually receive a degree at little or no cost to them - little/no student loans
BPark can spout that he doesn't buy the "free education" aspect but as a coach of 100s of college bound athletes - the number one objective is to get one of those athletic scholarships and to them it's the best of all worlds.
What is the percentage of players that actually make money for the college vs those that play 4 years, contribute to the school on more than an athletic aspect and actually go to class and use their education?
I think it best if the school says no scholarship the 1st year - student loans only and anyone who stays after that 1st year can get scholarships and if you stay four years the 1st year loans are paid off by the school. This will eliminate the one and dones - they can get their $ in the G league or Europe.
I don't want the government involved - it will lead to BS, making some politician rich and ultimate failure/waste
PS- anything involving Booker and Blumenthal has got to be crooked, full of lies and- in the end - ridiculous

 

[BParkDog]

If the player leaves early (to pursue professional career, transfers, quits sports, etc.) they forfeit that money.

I respectfully disagree. This targets and punishes, mostly, the best of the best. That is, those who are really bringing in the money. In this scenario, James Bouknight gets nothing, but Jalen Gaffney gets his full allotment. Further, that has the net effect of taking Bouknight's economic product and giving it to other players.

This will have the immediate effect of reducing total number of sports and scholarships at a school. Most schools have 1-2 players who are getting screwed on revenue they generate and their getting screwed supports many more athletes taking advantage of it.

I'm completely fine with this. I don't believe that sports that lose money should be sponsored by students who don't play those sports. I know this is a sports board, and so there are many who participated in and/or supported/support non-revenue sports at UConn, but I don't believe that the person who is there for an engineering degree should have to support a person playing golf or field hockey. I can understand that others would feel differently.

Again, this is about whether we are going to pay an athlete for the money the school makes on that athlete. It's a monopoly system. There are maybe 150 schools that a young man who wants to go to the NBA can reasonably attend - they're all members of the same organization, which organization prevents their payment. That's a monopoly.
Right now, the star athletes that bring in the money have that money (their product) go to the school. If we direct it anywhere other than the athletes who are bringing in the money, then we are just using their labor to raise money to give to others. Are golfers and field hockey players better recipients of that wealth redistribution than the trustees?

. . . save the faux rage when this decimates the academic opportunities for way more students than it helps financially for a few at the top.

Not enraged, and not faux. I don't believe the data would support the notion that the cancellation of soccer/lacross/fieldhockey/wrestling/tennis and so on would "decimate" the academic opportunities for anybody. You want to go to UConn? Qualify and go. If we want to help with money, we can and should, but there will be an abundance of kids who want to go to UConn who are qualified but who don't jump/dive/hit/swim, whatever. Why do the non-athletes get screwed? What about their "decimated" opportunity.

Geno said he’s all for paying athletes. But he gets to fire them too since they’ll be employees now

That's a clever response, and he's a clever man and a great coach, but he already does have the ability to fire them, for the most part. For anybody who's good, and capable of being in the rotation, just bench them. They're effectively fired. Can they quit? Yes, but then they have to pay with a year of their life. So it's not really like they're employees, after all. Coach and school are holding most of the cards.

This’ll end well for the smaller Olympic sports...

If the smaller olympic sports aren't revenue generating, then what better time than right now to have the conversation as to whether they should exist at all at UConn? Baseball at UConn had 16 mill in expenses and 3 mill in revenues. Sounds like a 13 million dollar loss. If they include the value of full scholarships for the players, that's still only about 2 million. 11 million dollars funds the education of how many poor kids who are motivated to go to college but don't have the funds and can't hit a slider? 180?

I always thought doing this would increase the gap between the power 5 and everyone else...

It might, it might not - it depends how it is implemented.

What about the rest of the roster? Do we have to pay Mercedes prices for Camry's?

Those details can be worked out. But when every UConn highlight video or ad shows James Bouknight's face and sick highlights, plainly revenue sharing would suggest that he's bringing more value than the walk on.

Just remember, whenever government touches anything it gets worse.

The "government" was responsible for the passage of the Sherman Act and the break up of Standard Oil. Also, the war effort against the Nazis and Imperial Japanese. Also, the production and distribution of the Salk vaccine. Also, the creation of the national interstate highway system. Also, the passage and enforcement of the Civil Rights act. So, your absolute fails, but, in spirit, I agree with your implied concept.
In this case, if the NCAA doesn't willfully change, who can force the change on them? Didn't Bannon (O'Bannon?) bring a lawsuit? Haven't others? Sometimes, only federal action will work.

BTW, Kemba seems to have made out just fine.

How Kemba made out is not material. What Kemba gave to my University has value well beyond what the University gave to him.

 

[Chin Diesel]

This’ll end well for the smaller Olympic sports...

Yep.

 

[Chin Diesel]

Geno said he’s all for paying athletes. But he gets to fire them too since they’ll be employees now

Wait til he has to go through their union rep in order to fire them.

 

[LIUCHusky]

I respectfully disagree. This targets and punishes, mostly, the best of the best. That is, those who are really bringing in the money. In this scenario, James Bouknight gets nothing, but Jalen Gaffney gets his full allotment. Further, that has the net effect of taking Bouknight's economic product and giving it to other players.

I'm completely fine with this. I don't believe that sports that lose money should be sponsored by students who don't play those sports. I know this is a sports board, and so there are many who participated in and/or supported/support non-revenue sports at UConn, but I don't believe that the person who is there for an engineering degree should have to support a person playing golf or field hockey. I can understand that others would feel differently.

Again, this is about whether we are going to pay an athlete for the money the school makes on that athlete. It's a monopoly system. There are maybe 150 schools that a young man who wants to go to the NBA can reasonably attend - they're all members of the same organization, which organization prevents their payment. That's a monopoly.
Right now, the star athletes that bring in the money have that money (their product) go to the school. If we direct it anywhere other than the athletes who are bringing in the money, then we are just using their labor to raise money to give to others. Are golfers and field hockey players better recipients of that wealth redistribution than the trustees?


Not enraged, and not faux. I don't believe the data would support the notion that the cancellation of soccer/lacross/fieldhockey/wrestling/tennis and so on would "decimate" the academic opportunities for anybody. You want to go to UConn? Qualify and go. If we want to help with money, we can and should, but there will be an abundance of kids who want to go to UConn who are qualified but who don't jump/dive/hit/swim, whatever. Why do the non-athletes get screwed? What about their "decimated" opportunity.

That's a clever response, and he's a clever man and a great coach, but he already does have the ability to fire them, for the most part. For anybody who's good, and capable of being in the rotation, just bench them. They're effectively fired. Can they quit? Yes, but then they have to pay with a year of their life. So it's not really like they're employees, after all. Coach and school are holding most of the cards.

If the smaller olympic sports aren't revenue generating, then what better time than right now to have the conversation as to whether they should exist at all at UConn? Baseball at UConn had 16 mill in expenses and 3 mill in revenues. Sounds like a 13 million dollar loss. If they include the value of full scholarships for the players, that's still only about 2 million. 11 million dollars funds the education of how many poor kids who are motivated to go to college but don't have the funds and can't hit a slider? 180?

It might, it might not - it depends how it is implemented.

Those details can be worked out. But when every UConn highlight video or ad shows James Bouknight's face and sick highlights, plainly revenue sharing would suggest that he's bringing more value than the walk on.

The "government" was responsible for the passage of the Sherman Act and the break up of Standard Oil. Also, the war effort against the Nazis and Imperial Japanese. Also, the production and distribution of the Salk vaccine. Also, the creation of the national interstate highway system. Also, the passage and enforcement of the Civil Rights act. So, your absolute fails, but, in spirit, I agree with your implied concept.
In this case, if the NCAA doesn't willfully change, who can force the change on them? Didn't Bannon (O'Bannon?) bring a lawsuit? Haven't others? Sometimes, only federal action will work.

How Kemba made out is not material. What Kemba gave to my University has value well beyond what the University gave to him.

 

[LIUCHusky]

Where are you getting those baseball cost figures from. The max # of baseball scholarships if I remember correctly is 11.4. Scholarship money wouldn't be more than $500,000. Where did the 16 mil figure come from?

 

[Kolumbo]

What kind of dollars are we even talking about? It might make sense if every athlete got the same amount no matter the school. Just make it a universal stipend. If it's unequal based on how much the program makes, then kids will be focusing on schools with the biggest payout over other factors. And if a kid is so good that he is one and done, any money the school gives him will be pocket change compared to what he'll be making the next year, so why bother. Schools will have to further raise tuition if we are talking significant dollars so the rest of the students take a hit.

No siree bob, I don't like it at all.

 

[SubbaBub]

I rather see an anti-trust lawsuit. Aresco for all his irrelevance has a point this year. Bending over backwards to put 2 loss teams ahead of Cincy is as bad as it gets.

 

[McLovin]

Why attach strings? Where does the forfeited money go? I don't know where this is headed but requiring a degree before distribution or a forfeiture of moneys earned are horrible, punitive ideas. Do you work for the NCAA?

Because they are student athletes. If they don’t fulfill their obligations as a student, then they shouldn’t get paid. Also, any student who would “forfeit” their earnings by leaving without a degree would most likely be opting to do so for more lucrative professional money.

Also if these kids had access to this money at 18-21 years old living on college campuses, alone for the first time in their lives, how many would be good stewards of that money? Look at how many pro athletes go broke within a few years of retirement because they partied all their money away when they were young pros. Delaying the payments as long as possible and also making sure the kids have earned a degree probably gives them the best chance at financial success.

Lastly, I’ll add that any of the top HS athletes worried about getting paid immediately now have the option to go directly to the G League or can play overseas. So the universe of players not good enough to go pro after HS but good enough to leave before obtaining a degree in 3 years is going to be getting smaller and smaller going forward.

 

[McLovin]

I respectfully disagree. This targets and punishes, mostly, the best of the best. That is, those who are really bringing in the money. In this scenario, James Bouknight gets nothing, but Jalen Gaffney gets his full allotment. Further, that has the net effect of taking Bouknight's economic product and giving it to other players.

If the financial rewards of playing for UConn are greater than the financial rewards of playing the the NBA, then I’d assume someone like Bouk would consider staying a 3rd year and finishing his degree. But I can promise what a top player could make in the pros will always be more than they can make at college.

While someone like Bouk no doubt helps the team and someone like Gaff would benefit more playing alongside Bouk, at the end of the day it’s still a team sport, especially at the college level. Isn’t that how most parts of life works though? Not sure what you do for work, but before now being self-employed, I was in sales and a Presidents Circle performer at a Fortune 500 company. Due to my success, a lot of the people on my team (managers above me and junior team members below me) benefited financially because of my performance and superior contribution the team goals.

 

[mussels]

A case has made it to the supreme court involving college athletes being able to profit from their own image or otherwise make money off the field/court. Far as I know that's completely different than revenue sharing, and I agree with those that think that unless revenue sharing is done just right, it will kill off the minor sports as most athletic programs lose money. (seems like revenue sharing would just be an added expense to a losing enterprise so other expenses will have to be trimmed)

On the surface, it seems like allowing the athletes to make off the field money in accord with their individual marketability won't cost the schools anything, and is certainly a fair thing to do, but the devil is in the details. Following California's lead, something like 20 states have either proposed or are considering their own rules. If schools are competing against each other on the field, and there are 50 different sets of rules for the athletes as determined by individual state law it would seem hard to keep competition fair and equal on the field. The NCAA wants to set the rules to keep things equal on the field irrespective of rules passed by state legislators.

It is a complicated situation that really should be addressed and there are other proposals working their way through congress that don't involve revenue sharing.

I haven't followed any of this closely, and probably have some of it wrong so if anyone is more on top of it please weigh in.

 

[Exit 4]

I am for allowing the players to get unlimited comp / earnings for any source, but not for direct payments by the school because that would make them employees. Student employees + education will not work (employees have complicated rights in the modern work environment).

I think legislation this extreme will push P5 football and BB to drop the education requirements and circle the wagons as a 50-70 super league. They will have no choice as a full bore revenue fightt will be on. Revenue sports will just be a business with kids wearing school laundry as employees, some of whom may actually go to school part time, but many dont even go near campus. Maybe some schools set up a separate board/corp to govern their sports unit as to keep the university free from sullied hands as general managers. The players will unionize, get there coin and benefits, and the system will become a pro league alternative. The funny question will come up about age, can this new league prohibit oldsters to maintain the thin facade of youthful amateurism?

I think all other D1 sports are put on a serious diet with the NCAA dropping the sports minimum. Investment, budgets, commitment will look more like DII and DIII. It could be that there is no impact to current DII and DIII programs since this is really about attacking revenue and DII and DIII have very little to fightt over. However, if DII and DIII will be require to treat players as employees, then I could see all sports moving to their respective alumni boards to operate and the education greatly minimized. These schools can't be minting more employees over what is supposed to be just school spirit fun.

 

[BlueDogs]

Why attach strings? Where does the forfeited money go? I don't know where this is headed but requiring a degree before distribution or a forfeiture of moneys earned are horrible, punitive ideas. Do you work for the NCAA?

They are students, not employees. Why tuition, room and board which the rest of middle American has to beg and borrow to pay for is not sufficient is beyond me. If they want to make money, go try and play for a paycheck. They’re free to do that any day of the week. Except for the very highest echelon, most couldn’t feed or house themselves on what the market would pay.

 

[Austin316]

My wife is a nurse... when she was in school she did clinicals at a local hospital. She didn’t get paid.

this will open up a can of worms for students that aren’t athletes in my opinion.

paying athletes will attract more young people to try the sports route when in reality, we need more youth shooting for Science, Technology,Engineering, and Math (STEM). STEM is so crucial to making sure our civilization thrive... it’s not basketball or football...

Think about the repercussions instead of just saying, yeah why not they deserve it.

 

[Chin Diesel]

Not enraged, and not faux. I don't believe the data would support the notion that the cancellation of soccer/lacross/fieldhockey/wrestling/tennis and so on would "decimate" the academic opportunities for anybody. You want to go to UConn? Qualify and go. If we want to help with money, we can and should, but there will be an abundance of kids who want to go to UConn who are qualified but who don't jump/dive/hit/swim, whatever. Why do the non-athletes get screwed? What about their "decimated" opportunity.

I'll just respond to the part where you responded to my comment about this plan decimating non-revenue generating sports.

This will cause an overall reduction of athletic scholarships. Some of these students who lose a scholarship would be able to get an academic scholarship but many will not. I don't know the exact percentage but I am confident suggesting not every athlete losing an athetic scholarship will get an academic scholarship of equal or like value.

And if athletes start going after general scholarship funds that is less revenue available for the remaining students.

The whole point of athletic scholarships for non-revenue generating sports is to get kids in to UConn using financial aid without dipping in to the general fund. The revenue generating sports cover these costs but not everyone in a revenue generating sport generates enough revenue to cover the cost of their scholarship,never mind generating enough to offset costs of other scholarships.

But why give out an academic scholarship if the student won't generate enough revenue while a student to cover the cost? And not all academic scholarships get the same output. This isn't any different than some athletes being able to use the scholarship as a springboard for future earnings and recognition and others getting a greater value in the free education and degree earned than they generated back for the university.