OT: Is This The Beginning Of The End For The NCAA?

[Alydar]

Excellent point!

Show me any large governmental or institutional (public) program that correctly benefits and protects the intended end-user while not disenfranchising a separate group of people and I'll show you dancing monkeys on our green moon

There is nothing capitalistic or sustainable about the stripping of individual freedoms. Consequently, the NCAA was doomed to eventually fail at keeping individual freedoms stripped from their rightful owners.

The NCAA also is in part responsible for turning football and basketball into the cash cows they have become. I don't remember ever hearing them say that all that money was a bad thing. (As long as it was going into their pockets).

 

[reno tony]

Oh yeah, do better schools... athletically speaking... get to charge more for things like coaching and such. Because you really have to think Geno would be worth more than Holly.

 

[Alydar]

So are these pro athletes going to have to pay for their education, room, board, training, travel, uniform and so many other expenses that I haven't mentioned?

Leave that up to each school to decide. I don't think many will send their star center a bill for room and board.

 

[j66kicker]

Well the NCAA met today on this issue for the first time, and has already capitulated (sort of) to the growing number of states considering “name & likeness” bills (including the US Congress now). The NCAA higher-ups have punted to the 3 NCAA divisions and asked each division to come up with a solution for their division which is ”consistent with the collegiate model.” Ha.

Despite Positive Vote, Don’t Expect NCAA to Permit Athletes to Make Money

 

[Ozimoto]

I don't have a crystal ball, but I suspect college athletics at the Division 1 level as we know it will be unrecognizable in no more than 10 years. Things have changed drastically in the last 10 years as a direct result of TV revenue and conference re-alignment that has destroyed many long standing regional rivalries that fueled student and alumni interest in sports. It is also driving up the costs to universities that have decided they want to have major athletic programs and join the blue bloods (UCONN football anyone?).

I also doubt that major success in sports generates the bounce in enrollment and general fund income to the school that it did five or ten years ago. Many in this generation of college students are not the rabid supporters of their university sports teams that we remember from our days of attending universities. My daughter looks at U of Maryland scores and is interested in how they are doing, but she only goes to games as a social event, not as a rabid fan. My son doesn't pay any attention to sports at his school. I don't think he has attended one sporting event at George Mason in the two years he has been there. Their selection of school had nothing to do with sports. They chose their school on the available programs, the costs, and the potential for future income. Sports success had absolutely nothing to do with it. At the cost of a college education these days, sports teams has little impact on the choice of a college for a majority of students from my personal experience.

Part of the disconnect between students and sports is based on the fact that the general student body and the athletes rarely mix. The top schools have separate dining halls and tutoring sessions for the athletes. You might see one or two athletes in one of your classes but other than walking by a practice field on your way to class you rarely have an opportunity to interact with the Division 1 athlete as a fellow student. They might as well be NFL or NBA players. It was bad enough 40 years ago when I was a student. I at least had a few classes with some of the football players who had real majors. I would suspect it is even more segregated now.

If you go to a game at a Division 1 school these days, students get tickets via a lottery system because the majority of the seats go to alumni or others (boosters) who are willing to pay a seat license fee on top of the ticket prices to attend games. When I went to WVU in the late '70's and early 80's any student could go into a football or basketball game and all they needed was their student ID. Now limiting student accessibility to put paying butts in the seats feeds the void between the student and the student athlete. This is why you don't have the rabid student sections that we were used to (with notable exceptions here and there).

These proposals will potentially help some athletes, but they will further erode the relationship between the general student population and the college athletic teams. I had an English professor who thought that college athletics had become a joke way back in 1980. He figured that it made more sense to have the college host a "professional team in residence" that would generate their own self sustaining revenue. I think that is essentially what Division 1 revenue sports will end up being (you could make the case it already is this way at some schools). Not sure what, if any, impact any of this will have on non-revenue sports and their athletes. I doubt it will help them significantly as there aren't too many endorsement opportunities for the guys and girls on the fencing team, or for the field hockey team for that matter.

It remains to be seen how this ruling will affect the awarding of athletic "scholarships." Will colleges and universities reduce their offers of student aid to athletes based on their earning potential? They already are doing that with "normal" students, basing the aid given on the government's determination (FAFSA) of what resources the student and his family have to put toward the cost of education.

As has been said many times, no one wants to see how the sausage is made. I am afraid the making of this sausage moving forward could get really ugly.

 

[Carnac]

As we know it today, it appears so.

 

[CocoHusky]

So are these pro athletes going to have to pay for their education, room, board, training, travel, uniform and so many other expenses that I haven't mentioned?

Is the NCAA going to distribute some revenue from the NCAA tournaments to the few players that are actually generating that revenue?
Are the coaches going to trickle down some of that Nike and Adidas shoe money currently going into their pockets to the players who must wear the shoe?
Is the NCAA Administration fees of $47.+ Million per year going to be reduced?

.

 

[BroadwayVa]

I’m not disputing that the top schools have an inherent advantage, but this would be one more advantage for top programs. At least today, there’s a chance for a secondary program to woo a top recruit with the pitch of immediate PT and the opportunity to build a winning tradition, etc.

Beyond that, the devil is in the details. There have been a number of indictments over 6 figure payments to player’s families from shoe companies for a player attending a specific university. The potential here is that such payments to the players themselves could be perfectly legal. So if I’m a top basketball player, and I know that if I attend Louisville that earns me a $200,000 check from Adidas, because Adidas has decided that Louisville is their flagship university for MBB, how do other schools compete for that recruit?

Nice post. The High price Universities almost always have an edge. Right now Stanford and a few others are glowing red with embarrassment, rightly so. Geno gets more than his share of "contracts" will this edict if it comes from the Feds mean Uconn kids can sell their names, pictures, autographs? While I tired of Coaches making millions because the kids do the labors of practices, classes, travel, games the Coaches make big bucks on the out come of their efforts. As a closet socialist I don't believe coaches should make the money they make. We can all fall back on the fallacious argument of the kids get the equivalent to 60,000/yr in scholarships--would coaches accept the equivalent in perks not money? (remember perks are taxed as income) Let the slings and arrows come!

 

[BroadwayVa]

Is the NCAA going to distribute some revenue from the NCAA tournaments to the few players that are actually generating that revenue?
Are the coaches going to trickle down some of that Nike and Adidas shoe money currently going into their pockets to the players who must wear the shoe?
Is the NCAA Administration fees of $47.+ Million per year going to be reduced?

.

I think some, like me, are jumping way ahead of where we will be soon. Getting fees for pix, signatures, etc isn't true professionalism but a step towards it probably. Scholarships are not payment they are an inducement that's why some top talent select better known Universities those scholarships for those not in the W mean more money usually. I think the players deserve something beyond a scholarship--i'm just not certain of what or how to do it. As @CocoHusky above points out everyone around College top sports are making money, big money.

 

[Checkmate 2.0]

What happens to recruiting? Can a school offer a scholarship as well as a promise from a booster for $$$$$ in endorsements? It will happen in MBB (actually it already is going on now). Or can endorsement money only come from a non-booster?

It sounds like a trainwreck.

 

[Grad1990]

Nice post. The High price Universities almost always have an edge. Right now Stanford and a few others are glowing red with embarrassment, rightly so. Geno gets more than his share of "contracts" will this edict if it comes from the Feds mean Uconn kids can sell their names, pictures, autographs? While I tired of Coaches making millions because the kids do the labors of practices, classes, travel, games the Coaches make big bucks on the out come of their efforts. As a closet socialist I don't believe coaches should make the money they make. We can all fall back on the fallacious argument of the kids get the equivalent to 60,000/yr in scholarships--would coaches accept the equivalent in perks not money? (remember perks are taxed as income) Let the slings and arrows come!

In your view what is the appropriate financial outcome, if any, for the players?

 

[CocoHusky]

What happens to recruiting? Can a school offer a scholarship as well as a promise from a booster for $$$$$ in endorsements? It will happen in MBB (actually it already is going on now). Or can endorsement money only come from a non-booster?
It sounds like a trainwreck.

Recruiting rules will not change. Scholarships will not change. Any incentives, enticements, or promises offered by an NCAA institution beyond the scholarship will make the players ineligible and the institution subject to discipline. Why is this so misunderstood?

 

[Checkmate 2.0]

Recruiting rules will not change. Scholarships will not change. Any incentives, enticements, or promises offered by an NCAA institution beyond the scholarship will make the players ineligible and the institution subject to discipline. Why is this so misunderstood?

Like I said the men already do it. ( not legal) The money is not offered by the school. This will offer the coaches to buy players. Then is the NCAA going to determine who deserves incentives?

 

[Alydar]

There's a new boss in town and ......



rackets never last.

 

[reno tony]

Is the NCAA going to distribute some revenue from the NCAA tournaments to the few players that are actually generating that revenue?
Are the coaches going to trickle down some of that Nike and Adidas shoe money currently going into their pockets to the players who must wear the shoe?
Is the NCAA Administration fees of $47.+ Million per year going to be reduced?

.

Great questions. Where is all the money coming from to pay these players. Will it be strictly endorsements, some type of minimum wage the universities pay, donations from boosters, ticket sales, sport paraphernalia sales, appearance fees and the list goes on. I guess I don't understand what is going to happen but it will certainly be interesting to see how this will play out.

 

[reno tony]

Just one more crazy question then I will stop. How funny would it be if some WCBB players made more money than some WNBA players? Would that be a hoot or what? I guess that is two questions.

 

[CocoHusky]

Great questions. Where is all the money coming from to pay these players. Will it be strictly endorsements, some type of minimum wage the universities pay, donations from boosters, ticket sales, sport paraphernalia sales, appearance fees and the list goes on. I guess I don't understand what is going to happen but it will certainly be interesting to see how this will play out.

I'm still not sure why this is being so misunderstood. Neither the California legislation or the NCAA change or direction yesterday says that schools are now required to "pay" the players. The change of direction was this simple: A player can now make money off their names, image and likeness. Example: If Megan walker wants to put her picture on a T-shirt and sell it she will be able to likely starting in January 2021.

 

[huskeynut]

Nobody is talking about the coming "unintended consequences" of all of this.

The first unintended consequences comes from South Carolina Senator Barr. He will propose a bill to tax the income earned on names, images and likenesses. His bill will also subject their scholarship money to being taxed as income.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the California legislation. Way too many unknowns and too much speculation. Its legislation without a plan. And that is cause for great concern.

More food for thought.

 

[CocoHusky]

Nobody is talking about the coming "unintended consequences" of all of this.

The first unintended consequences comes from South Carolina Senator Barr. He will propose a bill to tax the income earned on names, images and likenesses. His bill will also subject their scholarship money to being taxed as income.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the California legislation. Way too many unknowns and too much speculation. Its legislation without a plan. And that is cause for great concern.

More food for thought.

South Carolina Senator Barr is wasting his time. All income generated from image, name and likeness is already taxable. Athletic scholarships because it is administered through the NCAA (Tax exempt) is not taxable.

 

[oldude]

Nobody is talking about the coming "unintended consequences" of all of this.

The first unintended consequences comes from South Carolina Senator Barr. He will propose a bill to tax the income earned on names, images and likenesses. His bill will also subject their scholarship money to being taxed as income.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the California legislation. Way too many unknowns and too much speculation. Its legislation without a plan. And that is cause for great concern.

More food for thought.

South Carolina’s 2 senators are named Scott & Graham. I’ve never heard of S.C. Senator Barr?

I believe you are referring to the senator from Upper Carolina, Richard Burr.

 

[CocoHusky]

South Carolina’s 2 senators are named Scott & Graham. I’ve never heard of S.C. Senator Barr?

Maybe a state senator not US?

 

[oldude]

South Carolina Senator Barr is wasting his/her time. All income generated from image, name and likeness is already taxable.

What is new about N.C. Senator Burr’s proposal is that scholarships would be taxable.

 

[oldude]

Maybe a state senator not US?

No. Wrong State. Wrong Senator.

 

[CocoHusky]

What is new about N.C. Senator Burr’s proposal is that scholarships would be taxable.

South Carolina Senator Barr is wasting his time. All income generated from image, name and likeness is already taxable. Athletic scholarships because it is administered through the NCAA (Tax exempt) is not taxable.

Senator Burr would have to change the tax exempt status of the NCAA.

 

[oldude]

Senator Burr would have to change the tax exempt status of the NCAA.

We should give Senator Burr some slack. He has the misfortune of being an alumnus of Wake Forest, a school that would clearly suffer under the proposed new compensation rules for NCAA athletes.