How would you regulate paying college athletes? | Page 3 | The Boneyard

How would you regulate paying college athletes?

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
MilliniumPrince said:
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.
Expand ...
Are you a random text generator? Because nothing you say really makes any sense.
 
huskymedic said:
Expand ...


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.
 
.-.
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?
 
McLovin said:
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.
Expand ...

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 said:
Expand ...


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.
 
.-.
CL82 said:
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.
Expand ...

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.
 
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?
 
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?
 
the Q said:
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...
Expand ...

I am not sure about that, but by phony endorsements I meant something like a really rich donor setting up endorsement deals for one their "businesses". For example a donor could set-up a small sporting goods store in the area and offers pays top athletes $100K per year (or whatever top rates would be to land a top recruit) to become the "face" of the business while they are at the respective university.
 
McLovin said:
I am not sure about that, but by phony endorsements I meant something like a really rich donor setting up endorsement deals for one their "businesses". For example a donor could set-up a small sporting goods store in the area and offers pays top athletes $100K per year (or whatever top rates would be to land a top recruit) to become the "face" of the business while they are at the respective university.
Expand ...

If they went the route of allowing endorsements then the NCAA would have to either regulate how much athletes could get paid and/or have a list of approved brands and companies that can endorse athletes. But if they did this, it would kind of defeat the purpose of allowing them to get paid from a "free market" system.
 
the Q said:
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.
Expand ...
It's an apples to oranges comparison. If I, say, worked in a prosecutor's office, I wouldn't be entitled to take a job as private security for someone under investigation. The fact that other people can is entirely irrelevant. Same thing here. Scholarship athletes cannot, currently, earn money selling their image as an athlete. It is irrelevant if someone who is not scholarship athlete can. Accepting a scholarship means you are entitled to it's considerable benefits, valuing six figures, but in exchange they agree to not to get paid in ways derivative from their playing.
 
.-.
McLovin said:
If they went the route of allowing endorsements then the NCAA would have to either regulate how much athletes could get paid and/or have a list of approved brands and companies that can endorse athletes. But if they did this, it would kind of defeat the purpose of allowing them to get paid from a "free market" system.
Expand ...

Why would they have to do that?

It’s the players brand.
 
the Q said:
Why would they have to do that?

It’s the players brand.
Expand ...

To keep endorsements from becoming a bidding war between schools with rich donors to land top athletes.

Like I mentioned in my pervious comment, if there is no regulation then it will be easy for schools with big time donors to skirt the rules and offer endorsement deals of whatever it takes to land the athlete. Recruiting top athletes will just become the NBA offseason.

But if the NCAA caps endorsements or restricts what business can provide endorsements, it defeats the whole purpose giving kids the right to sell their likeness.

In short, allowing kids to use their likeness for endorsements will become a slippery slope and a no-win situation either way.
 
the Q said:
Why would they have to do that?

It’s the players brand.
Expand ...

Not true. Its mostly the universities brand that the student athlete is leveraging to create their own brand. Qithout the university they have no brand. If this was not the case, someone would create an alternative system, outside of the universities, to enable them to leverage their personal brand. But, that is not viable as the 1% would have to pay the other 99% of players to join them
 
Maybe pay the stipend when they graduate, make money off their likeness or name in their senior year, etc.
 
Interesting comments by the USCe AD:
southcarolina.rivals.com

Tanner weighs in on California bill on player likeness

The Gamecock AD talks about a big potential shift in college football.
southcarolina.rivals.com southcarolina.rivals.com

>>“I think we’re in a really good place. We do cost of attendance now and provide all kinds of services,” he said. “I probably shouldn’t do my editorial, but I don’t see how it could ever work. We have 21 sports and for all intents and purposes, football pays the freight for the other 20. If we’re going in that direction, however it may be set up, it’s going to affect financially in a big way.”

Tanner continued saying he’s worried if South Carolina’s bill passes the Gamecock athletic department couldn’t be as profitable as it is currently. According to USA Today’s annual piece, South Carolina had revenue just over $140 million with a profit of just over $5 million.

“Those institutions like ours that are self-supporting will no longer be self supporting. You’d have to get rid of a lot of sports,” Tanner said. “Would our donors continue to give to our programs or will they give to student-athletes? Where would the sponsorships go? Would they go to student athletes or would they stay within the athletics departments.”<<
 
.-.
the Q said:
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?
Expand ...

I don't see anyone who is against kids getting endorsements. I think we're just equating it with booster payouts. And yes, many of us think it will ruin college sports outside of the ACC, SEC and Big12.
 
The best way to run this, by the way, is to make a professional league that uses the university's brand, but which severs the student/athlete relationship with the university (while still offering buy-ins for those who want a university education).

This would mean that the entity is self-sustaining, it pays as much as it takes in, it doesn't get any money from the academic side, it doesn't give any money to the academic side. If a player wants an education, then that amount is paid directly by the athletic program (even at a discount), and deducted from the player's salary (and/or each school is allowed to recruit 3 or 4 players in bball, for instance, who can enroll at the university).

This would just make everything cut-and-dried. No arguments to be had by anyone.
 
Athletes are not employees of the colleges. If you start paying them then they become an employee subject to the rules and regulations of all other employees. They may be subject to union oversight, benefits, unemployment taxes, etc. if a player gets hurt does he collect unemployment compensation or disability benefits? I really think the current system of providing them a quality quarter million $ education plus $3,000 to 6,000 in living expense is appropriate.

I think they should be able to benefit from sale of their likeness to private companies. It’s as, David Benedict says, an art student selling their painting to someone. College athletes should be able to benefit from this.
 
DonaldDraper said:
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.
Expand ...
The whole thing is idiotic. Just change the rule where high school kids can go straight to the league and get paid to play and those who aren't good enough just go to college.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,317
Messages
4,563,007
Members
10,460
Latest member
SeanElAmin


Top Bottom