How would you regulate paying college athletes?

[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.

 

[upstater]

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.

No you're not. There are other leagues. And the NBA is changing next year.

As for football, there is hardly any market for a scrawny 18 year old playing semi-pro. The NFL certainly doesn't want them. But I suppose they could go to Canada.

At the end of the day, college football players are training to become pros. They have the best trainers, the best facilities, food, etc. It is the best way for them to get to the NFL, and it's also a cost heavy process.

The real problem here has always been coaching salaries. Outside of that, you can't even say these schools are profiting off of football because they are not. But the coaching salaries are so out of whack that it's caused all this commotion.

If you somehow recalibrated coach's pay, this issue would die quickly, because any analysis of the money/budgets shows that the schools are not getting rich.

 

[the Q]

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.

Is that moonlight in their field, or are they not allowed to make money off Instagram or a YouTube channel that isn’t related to their work/field?

 

[upstater]

Is that moonlight in their field, or are they not allowed to make money off Instagram or a YouTube channel that isn’t related to their work/field?

Not allowed to spend hours in other employment. This is why I think that possibly they would be allowed to get endorsements if they could, as long as it doesn't take away from their commitments.

I'm not making an exact comparison. I am only saying that universities do restrict students on full academic scholarship, they do restrict those with tuition remission and stipends, and they also do not allow students to profit from innovations they may have created while working on a grant.

The regular student body has no such restrictions because they are paying for their education. This is why I think the analogy where we treat star athletes as regular students just doesn't work.

 

[Edward Sargent]

I haven’t got too deep into the CA bill, but my concern would be that the schools with the biggest boosters would get the best talent and it would take away the parity that still exists. Would that even matter? Or do schools like Kentucky and Duke get pretty much the same players. Would it not affect them but affect the 5-25 schools more? Would allowing kids to get paid for likeness essentially do the same thing as it would make the kids who go to the biggest brands get paid the most? Would giving 17-18 year olds a ton of cash be a good idea or would they all end up in a strip club with a trash bag full of dollar bills. I probably would have.

I’m curious as to what approaches have been seriously discussed.

My approach would be to pay players a sum that would allow them to be ok not having a job for the year. Maybe 4K ish a semester and 5k ish in the summer so they can focus on their sport. I’d also probably give the family a 2000 expense account per season to see their kid play.

The catch would be that if you elected to pay for one sport, you would have to pay across your entire athletic department without dropping sports. So all athletes would have the time to dedicate to their craft, not have garbage-bag-full-of-bill money but enough to not be hungry huskies, and it would keep a level playing field between schools so there isn’t a massive concentration of college sports money into a few schools in big media or booster markets.

Am I way off? What does a proposal look like that will keep a good product for a broad base of fans and get the NCAA out of the tricky game of applying a BS set of rules across an incredibly wide range of scenarios.

Very curious to see what folks have to say.

I am impressed with the way college hockey handles it. The good teams (including UCONN) have players already drafted by NHL teams. Those players continue to play in college until they are called up.

 

[the Q]

I am impressed with the way college hockey handles it. The good teams (including UCONN) have players already drafted by NHL teams. Those players continue to play in college until they are called up.

This is the best answer.

But it makes too much sense to actually happen.

 

[MilliniumPrince]

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

Yes, but they aren't the foundation of multi-billion dollar tv contracts and apparel deals. That does not mention the increased profile athletes provide that those other young people do not. Do you remember UConn's National Profile before Jim Calhoun?

They are also young people who are allowed to work while attending school. Allowed to receive gifts from virtually anyone willing to provide one.

As much as many want to pretend athletes are like other students, we all know they are not.

 

[upstater]

Yes, but they aren't the foundation of multi-billion dollar tv contracts and apparel deals. That does not mention the increased profile athletes provide that those other young people do not. Do you remember UConn's National Profile before Jim Calhoun?

They are also young people who are allowed to work while attending school. Allowed to receive gifts from virtually anyone willing to provide one.

As much as many want to pretend athletes are like other students, we all know they are not.

1. The multi-billion TV contracts don't add up to much for most schools. The bball one is reduced to $600m a year after the NCAA takes a cut for hosting all sports championships, then the rest is shared among 4000 schools, with even the big boys taking in under a million.

2. A lot of schools without athletic programs skyrocketed in selectivity in the last decade or so because of demographics. UConn may indeed be an outlier, like Boston College, in that sports really helped, but people who have studied this have shown that by and large sports have not helped schools rise academically, and some may have even been hurt by sports (Rutgers).

3. The people paying tuition ARE helping schools with their national profile. Without them, the schools collapse.

4. The kid who are working outside of school are also not receiving a full scholarship and room & board & all fees and books remitted, not to mention a $5k stipend. They work because they pay the school.

 

[CL82]

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

Some will at least and that's still going to be true if they are also paid "above the table."

 

[CL82]

As much as many want to pretend athletes are like other students, we all know they are not.

I agree they are not. They've agreed to forgo certain actions in exchange for agreeing to meet certain requirements. Thanks for pointing out why drumbeat about what non-athletes can do or not do is so entirely pointless.

 

[MilliniumPrince]

I agree they are not. They've agreed to forgo certain actions in exchange for agreeing to meet certain requirements. Thanks for pointing out why drumbeat about what non-athletes can do or not do is so entirely pointless.

Because you seemit so? Lol great.

When you show me a debate team with multi-million dollar apparel deals and defeats featured in primetime, let me know. Athletes generate billions without getting a dime. So I guess Socialism is accepted in the U.S.