How would you regulate paying college athletes?

[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.

 

[Palatine]

College players should NOT be paid. Period

If a person sees no value in a college education, he should NOT go to college. Go to Europe. Go to the G League. Go to Asia. Do not go to Math class.

 

[McLovin]

While I am against paying college athletes for just playing a sport, I do understand the argument to compensate them for uses of their likeness. Here is what I have always wanted to see when they went down the route of compensating college kids.

1. No pay to play. They already get free tuition and annual stipend of a few thousand dollars. At larger D1 schools, athletes also get a bunch of additional free swag (shoes, apparel, etc.)

2. No "endorsements" allowed. As someone mentioned earlier, big time donors will create phony endorsements to get athletes. Schools with billionaire alumni would be able to basically buy players by offering massive endorsement deals if this isn't regulated.

3. Athletes should only be compensated for revenue generated tied to their likeness (mostly this would be jersey sales and MAYBE a portion of the ticket / tv revenue depending on how they are used to market the events, but that gets complicated).

4. This is the key point... the money is held in a trust by the school and only distributed to the athlete AFTER they graduate with a degree and qualifying GPA. If the player leaves early to go pro, transfer or drop out, they forfeit the money to the school, which will be used to repay tuition cost and other expenses related to that athlete during their tenure there.

 

[Husky68]

You go to a university (assuming you can get in and have the money) and if you want to play a sport on a university team you pitch in for expenses, get one of the parents to coach, car pool to games and have one of the managers wash the uniforms. Anything else is an unrelated business venture and no reason to be part of a university.

Not saying universities can't own teams, why not the New York University Yankees or the Rutgers Giants. Why require university attendance, just have an under 22 league like a G league, the Duke Hornets for the younger guys could work. Just think, the UConn Whalers and the UConn Patriots.

So a college student can go to St. Johns and play on the Yeshiva Knicks and get paid. Maybe it would mean less money for Zion from what Duke might pay under the old system but most guys would/could make out.

 

[navery12]

I have no interest in arguing this point but all the people who don't think players should be paid, just know you agree with Doug Gottlieb

 

[CL82]

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.

Are you a random text generator? Because nothing you say really makes any sense.

 

[Guapo]

This. Is anyone actively against this?

You can argue back and forth till your blue in the face about paying college athletes, but this idea is what the current discussion is focused around.

I’m not sure how anyone can argue against this.

 

[jimva]

They should not be paying them, ever. If you want to be an amateur and go to school for free, this is how it is. If you want to get paid, skip the education and go to a semi-pro/development league. This way the players have and option, get an education or get paid, and we maintain amateur status of college sports.

One more thought. Once you pay one you have to pay them all, something. To determine what "something" is you will need a college athletes union. Ready for March Madness to be canceled because of a strike?

 

[MilliniumPrince]

Are you a random text generator? Because nothing you say really makes any sense.

Yet you keep replying to me.

 

[the Q]

While I am against paying college athletes for just playing a sport, I do understand the argument to compensate them for uses of their likeness. Here is what I have always wanted to see when they went down the route of compensating college kids.

1. No pay to play. They already get free tuition and annual stipend of a few thousand dollars. At larger D1 schools, athletes also get a bunch of additional free swag (shoes, apparel, etc.)

2. No "endorsements" allowed. As someone mentioned earlier, big time donors will create phony endorsements to get athletes. Schools with billionaire alumni would be able to basically buy players by offering massive endorsement deals if this isn't regulated.

3. Athletes should only be compensated for revenue generated tied to their likeness (mostly this would be jersey sales and MAYBE a portion of the ticket / tv revenue depending on how they are used to market the events, but that gets complicated).

4. This is the key point... the money is held in a trust by the school and only distributed to the athlete AFTER they graduate with a degree and qualifying GPA. If the player leaves early to go pro, transfer or drop out, they forfeit the money to the school, which will be used to repay tuition cost and other expenses related to that athlete during their tenure there.

I’m not an accountant but couldn’t phony endorsements, if you took the expense write off, Be considered tax fraud?

Tag your favorite BY accountant to help...

 

[huskymedic]

 

[upstater]

But of course, they can turn pro anytime now, but they just don't have the venues to play. BBall you have options. Football, not so much--nor would you want a scrawny 18 year old to go up against 260 full grown men who run a 4.6 40.

 

[B1GEast]

Your GPA should factor in

 

[the Q]

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.

To go to your last line, the NCAA has brought that on themesleves claiming they’re students first.

If that’s a the case then they need to put their money where their mouth is.

 

[the Q]

What is the line people are drawing?

Are we upset if the baseball teams all got compensated for ncaa baseball video game sales? (Same for football and hoops)

Do we care if everyone gets a piece of U athletics gear sold? Or if spirts teams get a piece of all specific sport gear sold (i.e. football jersey sales divided amongst the scholarship football players)

Do we care about a kid making money off his own insta or YouTube channel?

I know some say endorsements, but as long as there’s actually something done, if a business owner is willing to take a huge loss for a nominal endorsement program, is that really worse than the current system where people are committing crimes to get kids to schools?

 

[BNich]

By not paying them. College athletics have been going on forever. You get an education. The opportunity to pursue a passion that can lead to life and career for you. Why must you be paid in addition to everything else?