How would you regulate paying college athletes?

[bendm]

People assert, with no evidence, that "paying players for their likeness is a slippery slope that wont end well for college athletics"

we have all the evidence we need. bball and football players are already being paid and it's already separating the haves from the have-nots in terms of parity. this gap would grow exponentially if boosters could legally pay players. a schools athletic success shouldnt be inextricably linked to the number of their alumni, with a couple exceptions e.g. Duke and Notre Dame

 

[SubbaBub]

Let them license their images and have endorsements. If you are good enough to land one without use of the University trademarks then go for it. The market will sort it out. The idea that top athletes are choosing schools for any reason other than athletics is ludacris.

It also preserves the tax exempt status for the AD.

If Billy Bob's auto house wants to pay the second string guard to make an appearance, so be it. My assumption is that won't be a ton of money.

If they want to pay Johnny Heisman QB prospect 200k to come to State U, that's fine too. It's not my money and no different for recruiting than ESPN paying Indiana $40M to prop up it's athletic program. If CR has taught us anything its that there will always be haves and have nots because the money disparity is always going to be huge.

The caveat here should be that you get one shot at playing as an NCAA amateur so pick your school wisely. Sure you can transfer or even step down in division, but if there is going to be an outside the system marketplace for talent, the NCAA doesn't have to enable further chaos by letting kids jump schools and remain eligible for athletics. Go play in a minor pro league.

 

[Horatio]

If they do get paid the bulk of the money can go into an account that they can’t access until their 27? The other portion should be used as maybe a reasonable bi weekly allowance for food , clothing, etc. The tricky part is trying to decide the pay scales between the different sports. It’s obvious what sports bring in the big money but paying all of a schools athletes based on that would be protested.

Even after athletes do get paid, elite kids will still get illegally paid during recruitment.

 

[the Q]

If they do get paid the bulk of the money can go into an account that they can’t access until their 27? The other portion should be used as maybe a reasonable bi weekly allowance for food , clothing, etc. The tricky part is trying to decide the pay scales between the different sports. It’s obvious what sports bring in the big money but paying all of a schools athletes based on that would be protested.

Even after athletes do get paid, elite kids will still get illegally paid during recruitment.

Which is why I’m fine with players going out on their own and getting it.

I don’t know if just football players can be paid for their likeness for an ncaa football deal or not. But that would make sense since it’s literally an outside funding source. But that may not work that way. If it does then forget it. Title IX causes a lot of problems with merit based pay.

 

[CL82]

Not engaging on the point?

I have yet to see a single piece of evidence in years of exactly WHY paying players would "be a slippery slope that won't end well for college athletics" other than assertions of this as fact.

Like every other matter of injustice, it comes down to a central question : Do you prefer order, or do you prefer justice.

If you prefer order, you will go to any lengths or assertion to defend the current status quo. In this case it is people scaremongering and nostalgically rueing the NCAA as they knew it.

If you prefer justice, you understand that regardless of the unpleasantness of change, to promote a more just environment change is necessary, and to figure out how to best do that.

You can be dismissive if you want, but it doesn't change the truth of the matter. College athletes are currently exploited. If there is no change, that exploitation will continue. So change is absolutely necessary.

Oh, and if for any reason you prefer the current status quo, you are ok with the exploitation of the athletes. Its central to your position.

Yeah I see you couldn't figure out why it was crazy. Okay, I can help.

Do you seriously think that offering a student a 4 year scholarship, which he or she is free to accept or not, is the equivalent to being abducted from their homes, shackled in in a near lightless hold for months and then condemning them and their progeny into forced bondage? Does that strike you as a rational comparison? It doesn't to me in the least.

Kids have a choice to go pro or not. If they choose not to, then they agree not make money from athletics until after they leave the university. That's the system we have now. There's no doubt it is imperfect but once you eliminate the nominal amateurism it falls apart.

 

[the Q]

Yeah I see you couldn't figure out why it was crazy. Okay, I can help.

Do you seriously think that offering a student a 4 year scholarship, which he or she is free to accept or not, is the equivalent to being abducted from their homes, shackled in in a near lightless hold for month and then condemning them and their progeny into forced bondage? Does that strike you as a rational comparison? It doesn't to me in the least.

Kids have a choice to go pro or not. If they chose not to they agree not make money from athletics. That's the system we have now. There's no doubt it is imperfect but once you eliminate the nominal amateurism it falls apart.

I’m against tax payers subsidizing the nfl and NBA for being too cheap to run serious minor league operations.

 

[CL82]

I’m against tax payers subsidizing the nfl and NBA for being too cheap to run serious minor league operations.

Ah there's the fundamental difference. If you consider college sports to be the minor leagues then any restriction on earnings is BS. There should be no grades, no classes, free agency should be allowed, etc.

And if you really are "against taxpayers subsidizing the nfl and NBA for being too cheap to run serious minor league operations" then you should be against college sports in all forms, right? No taxpayer money for dorms or facilities, or uniforms, or meals, and definitely not for scholarships. Basically this position is a statement against college football or basketball in any form whatsoever.

I respectfully disagree.

 

[the Q]

Ah there's the fundamental difference. If you consider college sports to minor leagues then it all BS. There should be no grades, no classes, free agency, etc.

And if you really are "against taxpayers subsidizing the nfl and NBA for being too cheap to run serious minor league operations then you should be against college sports in all forms, right? No taxpayer money for dorms or facilities, or uniforms, or meals, and definitely not for scholarships. Basically this position is a statement against college football or basketball in any form whatsoever.

Respectfully disagree.

I’m fine with them offering scholarships cause that’s the student first model.

But the schools don’t care if other students have money making side projects. I have no issue with athletes doing that.

Basically just treat them like regular students. But again, giving them the money from video games or other opportunities like that is the major difference.

 

[upstater]

People assert, with no evidence, that "paying players for their likeness is a slippery slope that wont end well for college athletics"

But when I read it I see

"freeing slaves is a slippery slope that won't end well for plantation economics"
"women voting is a slippery slope that won't end well for democracy"
"union organizing is a slippery slope that won't end well for the economy"
"blacks voting is a slippery slope that won't end well for democracy"
"women sports is a slippery slope that won't end well for college athletics"


And every other unfounded assertion that anyone protecting a discriminatory and unjust status quo has ever used.

How about this - not paying people a fair market wage for their labor is unnacceptable. Start there and understand that literally any other outcome is a more just and fair one. Slippery slope fear mongers be damned.

They make more than he fair market wage now.

How is the NBDL doing?

People always forget the fact that it is the other fellow students subsidizing these sports. Or the taxpayers.

How fair are you to them?

Sure the college coaches get paid obscene amounts. I wish a law could be passed to address that. But it can't.

 

[uconndogs]

While I agree with you about endorsements, this surely means that the "clubs" with the wackiest boosters will dominate the landscape. All it takes is one bazillionaire per school. It's going to get silly. It's going to become T. Boone Pickens IV vs. the new Jeffrey Epstein.

Totally agree. I think this horse is out of the barn and we won’t recognize college sports from what we have now. There will be a hand full of programs that will have professional athletes in the truest sense. And there will be the rest of college athletics. There will be a complete bifurcation.

The problem I see is that the “highest” levels of college football and basketball will have little differentiation from the NFL and NBA. So if you want to watch professional sports, who would you choose?

 

[CL82]

I’m fine with them offering scholarships cause that’s the student first model.

But the schools don’t care if other students have money making side projects. I have no issue with athletes doing that.

Basically just treat them like regular students. But again, giving them the money from video games or other opportunities like that is the major difference.

I agree in principal, but it would be problematic in the real world. Kids would pick schools based upon which had the most side cash. Kids might complain about not starting because being a starter has more side money potential. I don't see a way to make this work in the real world.

 

[HuskyHawk]

I’m fine with them offering scholarships cause that’s the student first model.

But the schools don’t care if other students have money making side projects. I have no issue with athletes doing that.

Basically just treat them like regular students. But again, giving them the money from video games or other opportunities like that is the major difference.

Yeah. And the cost of living thing is fine. Some are poor and should have a life.

But I hope these students are realistic. Aside from Zion last year, not one college player was really recognizable. Nobody would pay to see any of them play of not for the association with the schools.

That’s why the minor leagues aren’t financially viable. If every college team was instead some minor league team, they’d have no fans. Same for football. Baseball and hockey are played at a relatively higher level in the minors.

The NCAA should hold their ground on this and let the CA schools opt out of participation if they want. And certainly there should be a paid NBA minor league available for these kids who don’t want college.

 

[uconnbill]

I know we are worried about this but what about the minor league basketball that will end up being a safe landing spot for high school players in 2022 when they can go directly into the Pro's instead of college.
That worries me as much or more than the pay. I think the NCAA is going to have issues going forward and they have no one to blame but there own arrogance

 

[Edward Sargent]

A full ride to a decent school is $35k and up a year not including books, tutors and other perks of being a student athlete that aren't afforded to the general student body. Sounds like they are already receiving some form of compensation. They should get a spending allowance just because they are not permitted to have jobs because of fraud fears but anything above that makes them true professionals and will destroy amateur sports forever, just look at what it has done to the Olympics which I care very little for now a days.

Your way off! Maybe for instate at a state school, but double that for any private school and add 10 to 20K for out of state at any state school (including UCONN)

 

[whaler11]

This was already approved, I thought. Schools are already paying players $5-6k in addition to all their fees.

By the way, this has backfired spectacularly on a couple of schools I know of. The NCAA only allows schools to reimburse athletes up to the amount of posted living expenses, based on local costs, travel, utilities, etc. Schools started posting those $5-6k estimates on their websites, as required. These were used by grad student unions to argue for higher stipends. It has worked successfully at a couple of places I know. A clear example of policy for athletes helping students. Amazing. And yet, that doesn't mean the pot of money for these payouts ever increased. Someone is paying for this, that's for sure. It amazes me that the parents of undergrads never wise up to this.

or seemingly taxpayers

 

[Dream Jobbed 2.0]

You can’t

 

[MilliniumPrince]

The basic argument against paying athletes is "my college won't be able to compete". In other words, I am fine with taking advantage of young people as long as it leads to my entertainment.

The next level argument: Students will only go to the schools with the most money. Apparently, there isn't already a hierarchy of preferred programs in college athletics.

 

[Poe]

You don’t regulate it. It will sort itself out.

 

[LIuconn]

A 4 yr college education doesn't "cost" $200k+. The $ is more valuable. There's no way to reign it in. Kentucky will always pay kids under the table just like they do now

 

[upstater]

The basic argument against paying athletes is "my college won't be able to compete". In other words, I am fine with taking advantage of young people as long as it leads to my entertainment.

The next level argument: Students will only go to the schools with the most money. Apparently, there isn't already a hierarchy of preferred programs in college athletics.

What about the kids paying student fees? Aren’t they young people?

 

[bendm]

The basic argument against paying athletes is "my college won't be able to compete". In other words, I am fine with taking advantage of young people as long as it leads to my entertainment.

The next level argument: Students will only go to the schools with the most money. Apparently, there isn't already a hierarchy of preferred programs in college athletics.

sure there's a hierarchy and it will become exponentially magnified if the schools already at the top can unleash the full power of their boosters. goodbye parity. goodbye interest. goodbye viewership.

at that point, only the P5 state schools and the USCs/Dukes/Notre Dames of the world should even bother with an athletic department. why lose tens of millions per year on athletics when there's no chance of competing?

fewer schools with athletic departments would mean fewer available athletic scholarships which would mean fewer people can afford to go to college. is that less important than zion williamson getting a couple hundred thousand more dollars to play ball for a semester?

 

[huskymedic]

 

[upstater]

It's crazy that people who are typically free market solves things are the same people who are saying let's continue to stop the free market...Maybe it's not about the free market.

This can be totally reversed.

No one forces them to play in the NCAA. They can go pro right away.

How is that not the free market (and this goes doubly since the whole enterprise is subsidized by other students and taxpayers)?

 

[polycom]

This can be totally reversed.

No one forces them to play in the NCAA. They can go pro right away.

How is that not the free market (and this goes doubly since the whole enterprise is subsidized by other students and taxpayers)?

The nba and nfl force them to not play. If the goal is either league you’re essentially forced to play in the ncaa for exposure.

 

[upstater]

But the schools don’t care if other students have money making side projects. I have no issue with athletes doing that.

Colleges do actually restrict students on full academic scholarship (i.e. not financial aid). They restrict many of their student workers too who bring in money to the university. It's part of their contract. Not allowed to moonlight.

Now, I don't think endorsements would even fall under that since the restriction is based on time devoted to duties, and with an endorsement, you really wouldn't have to do anything. Nonetheless, scholarships, grants, stipends, etc., don't come without restrictions. The agreements are reciprocal. In fact, some students who have been integral in key discoveries that lead to patents have been totally frozen out from any proceeds whatsoever. But that is what they agreed to going in.