Litigation to force paying of players?

[The Funster]

I am not saying that plan would not have some serious issue but how close to reality is this already anyways? Robert Burton flips his lid about Coach PP and Hathway gets fired.

T Boone Pickins basically runs OSU. FedEx and Memphis. I'm sure the list goes on.

I can't argue against what you're saying. However, there is a difference when a donor helps underwrite a program and when a sponsor directly pays a player.

 

[Penfield]

NCAA basketball cards are signed and endorsed by players and teams, and they are paid.

Probably not worth arguing over but this is what I read - http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slug=dw-robertson012611

 

[Penfield]

I can't argue against what you're saying. However, there is a difference when a donor helps underwrite a program and when a sponsor directly pays a player.

I also do not disagree with you.

One of the potential ideas getting thrown around is following the Olympic model. Athletes were once banned from participating in the olympics if they were not amatuers but things have changed and now they can go out and get sponsors.

The big difference between the Olympics and the NCAA is for the most part the people participating in the Olympics don't get to choose what team they play for. They can't just go to the country with the most money. There would be some serious issues on the NCAA side.

Jay Bilas seems to be a supporter of this model. People talk about it. I just threw it out there for discussion.

 

[upstater]

Probably not worth arguing over but this is what I read - http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slug=dw-robertson012611

I've never seen those. I used to work for Donald Dell's Proserv back in the 1980s, when David Falk was an agent there. I simply recall deals when they licensed Jordan's North Carolina jersey with his name on the back. It went through the agent.

 

[ZooCougar]

The T. Boone Pickns story is interesting. He gives $200 million on condition the money is invested in his hedge fund. The school parks the money there, then issues bonds to build a stadium. The school is on the hook for $200 million. Then the hedge fund goes belly up, all the money is lost. The school now has a $200 million loan out. In the meanwhile, faculty won research grants for a single project (private corporate money, not a national institute) similar to UConn's Jackson Labs project, hundreds of millions at stake. New labs are needed, a new building. The school goes to bond them out, investors look at their debt exposure, especially with the $200m on the books from the stadium, and they deem them too big a risk. No one will lend. The school's credit-rating is downgraded. A year goes by and the private company pulls out of the project. Meanwhile, T. Boone Pickens promises he will fund what he promised. I'm sure he will. But look what happened in the meantime.

Aww shucks upstater. It don't matter, T. Boone will make good, and it ain't gonna stop construction of the new Cracker Barrell of Exit 16. Giddy up!

 

[Penfield]

I've never seen those. I used to work for Donald Dell's Proserv back in the 1980s, when David Falk was an agent there. I simply recall deals when they licensed Jordan's North Carolina jersey with his name on the back. It went through the agent.

I wouldn't be surprised if this kinda stuff depends on the Company, School and Player invloved.

What Oscar Robertson probably doesn't realize is that nobody is making money off of trading cards anymore.

 

[HuskyHawk]

I agree with this. The only other options are to blow the whole thing up, make it Semi-Pro and let everyone but the Schools throw cash at these kids, or stop playing big time college athletics.

This is what happens in the rest of the world. We are the only country with major college athletics. It's an interesting problem. Are inner city basketball players better served by a college scholarship or by being signed to a deal by some NBA D-league. If you look at Soccer, and what Barcelona does, it is brilliant really. They run a school as part of their youth program, and recruit kids from around the world. They can manage and ensure a healthy study/sports balance that our colleges struggle with.

It's really an interesting problem. Essentially, the NBA and NFL have foregone a minor league system and allowed the colleges to do it for them. By using colleges as the hosts of the teams, they obtain a ready made crowd of young people, that refreshes every year, plus a growing alumni pool as fans. College football is much more popular than minor league professional football could ever be. Because baseball and football both have minor leagues and have a high international participation rate, neither is as affected by this problem. Kids have choices and can choose to be paid or go to school. I think that's the best answer.

 

[Penfield]

Because baseball and football both have minor leagues and have a high international participation rate, neither is as affected by this problem. Kids have choices and can choose to be paid or go to school. I think that's the best answer.

This is also a valid option - use the same plan as baseball. Either go pro or go to school for 3 years (and sign your rights away in the process if that's what it entails). With basketball it would be helpful if the NBA provided a decent option for young players, but that does not mean there are not options out there.

 

[upstater]

This is what happens in the rest of the world. We are the only country with major college athletics. It's an interesting problem. Are inner city basketball players better served by a college scholarship or by being signed to a deal by some NBA D-league. If you look at Soccer, and what Barcelona does, it is brilliant really. They run a school as part of their youth program, and recruit kids from around the world. They can manage and ensure a healthy study/sports balance that our colleges struggle with.

It's really an interesting problem. Essentially, the NBA and NFL have foregone a minor league system and allowed the colleges to do it for them. By using colleges as the hosts of the teams, they obtain a ready made crowd of young people, that refreshes every year, plus a growing alumni pool as fans. College football is much more popular than minor league professional football could ever be. Because baseball and football both have minor leagues and have a high international participation rate, neither is as affected by this problem. Kids have choices and can choose to be paid or go to school. I think that's the best answer.

The level of play will almost surely be impacted by the lack of revenues. Future NFL players, for instance, are treated to a level of coaching and skills development that would be costly were it not for the revenues. For the players that don't have the ability to go to the pros, they get an opportunity at a degree. The only factor that argues against me here is that there are limits on practice time, etc. It could be that having fewer trainers and coaches is offset by more time devoted to the sport.

 

[HuskyHawk]

The level of play will almost surely be impacted by the lack of revenues. Future NFL players, for instance, are treated to a level of coaching and skills development that would be costly were it not for the revenues. For the players that don't have the ability to go to the pros, they get an opportunity at a degree. The only factor that argues against me here is that there are limits on practice time, etc. It could be that having fewer trainers and coaches is offset by more time devoted to the sport.

Well the NFL is going to have to come to grips with this. The "free" minor leagues may not exist forever. Alabama is wildly popular. A Falcons minor league team in Birmingham would be much less so. The ligitation risk from concussions alone could cause problems for college football. I'm sure the existing system will last for some time...but for how long?

 

[GopherHawk]

Make the scholarship athlete sign away this issue when they accept the scholarship. I don't see them saying the $30k per year they got in education wasn't a benefit. Even the successful athlete wouldn't have made it without the coaching/weight training the got. This thing goes away when the Plantiff's have to admit they did receive benefits from the schools.

 

[Penfield]

Well the NFL is going to have to come to grips with this. The "free" minor leagues may not exist forever. Alabama is wildly popular. A Falcons minor league team in Birmingham would be much less so. The ligitation risk from concussions alone could cause problems for college football. I'm sure the existing system will last for some time...but for how long?

How do you think this would change if the Falcons Minor league team completely replaced Alabama? What if we had a system in place in America for Football and Basketball that was similar to European soccer where teams move up to different leaugues. I think if college sports ceased to exist a model like this could work and could thrive. Alabama fans might have a hard time supporting a Falcons minor league team but what if they could support a franchise that could one day be an equivalent to the Falcons?

 

[huskypantz]

And, so, then how would schools fund college athletics?

How does Ohio U, Marshall, Louisana Tech or Jackson State fund college athletics now? They don't have multimillion dollar contracts. I'm surprised that someone in academia would ask that question.

 

[upstater]

How does Ohio U, Marshall, Louisana Tech or Jackson State fund college athletics now? They don't have multimillion dollar contracts. I'm surprised that someone in academia would ask that question.

By losing a ton of money. And that's not going to continue for long. Isn't this the whole point of what's happening?

 

[bmayuc]

By losing a ton of money. And that's not going to continue for long. Isn't this the whole point of what's happening?

College sports are not designed to make money just like college tours arent designed to make money.

They are a marketing/recruiting/retaining/fundraising tool. People need to wake up and understand that of uconns Billion dollar budget, a revenue neutral sports program is a bonus. Even at a loss, it should just be considered part of the marketing department.

Do people think that guided tours makes money? No. How about TV advertising. That costs money just the same. Athletics is marketing. For UConn is built the entire university in the 90s for christs sake!

sent from my Galaxy Note 2 using tapatalk

 

[HuskyHawk]

How do you think this would change if the Falcons Minor league team completely replaced Alabama? What if we had a system in place in America for Football and Basketball that was similar to European soccer where teams move up to different leaugues. I think if college sports ceased to exist a model like this could work and could thrive. Alabama fans might have a hard time supporting a Falcons minor league team but what if they could support a franchise that could one day be an equivalent to the Falcons?

Have to admit I love the concept of relegation. The small market teams are encouraged to develop talent and sell it off, and if they have enough fan and sponsorship support can rise while others fall. It's essentially the model the Tampa Bay Rays and Oakland A's have been using. Baseball is the closest to this model, because there is a deep minor league system and no draft of most international talent. Football is the furthest away. It would be interesting, as teams like the Giants and Jets would be flush with money and sponsors, but would have little local access to NFL talent, while the Birmingham Elephants would be much the opposite.

 

[Penfield]

College sports are not designed to make money just like college tours arent designed to make money.

They are a marketing/recruiting/retaining/fundraising tool. People need to wake up and understand that of uconns Billion dollar budget, a revenue neutral sports program is a bonus. Even at a loss, it should just be considered part of the marketing department.

Do people think that guided tours makes money? No. How about TV advertising. That costs money just the same. Athletics is marketing. For UConn is built the entire university in the 90s for christs sake!

sent from my Galaxy Note 2 using tapatalk

The UConns of the world are operating at a loss so that the Valparaisos and South Dakota States of the world can operaterate at a loss. What happens when the UConns of the world are gone? Basically there is no more marketing/recruiting/retaining/fundraising tool. The tool is the NCAA tournament and without the big boys who is going to watch?

What happens to UConn if were not with Ohio St, Florida, and Michigan?

 

[CL82]

I am no expert on this subject so my ideas may be totally off base or completely stupid. I also have no idea how Title 9 would play a factor in this. Everyone seems to be hungup on a very straight forward Pay to Play model. Why cant they think of something more creative than that?

1) Would they ever let players make money by doing sponsorships? I think the issues that could arise here are pretty obvious. Fed Ex could just have every Memphis basketball player do a 30 second ad and give them all $100,000. Could the NCAA or the next governing body set up a committe to approve these deals to make sure everything is on the up and up?

2) Why not limit the Name and Likeness Release to only while the student is in school. After that they get their likeness back. If Coca Cola wants to use Bryce Drew or Tate George's shot to sell soda then they should get a cut of the money. The money would go through the NCAA and the schools have nothing to do with it.

3) Could the NCAA, BCS, & Conferences pay players instead of the schools? One of the biggest issue seems to be that the schools dont want to pay the players. Would it be crazy for the NCAA, BCS and Conferences to set up prize money based on where you finish in their tournaments (ie everyone that plays in the first round gets $4000, second round $8000 etc.)? Is the problem that you have to provide the exact same money for all sports - men and women?

I like # 2 although there is the potential for abuse with the guaranteed post grade payoff.

 

[CL82]

The ONLY way this can work is for the NCAA or some other body to take a percentage cut of the conference media tier 1/2 contracts and divide it equally to each D1 athlete for every university in the respective sport that warrants a stipend. And I know that idea would get blown up by the BCS conferences in a second.

God no.

 

[upstater]

College sports are not designed to make money just like college tours arent designed to make money.

They are a marketing/recruiting/retaining/fundraising tool. People need to wake up and understand that of uconns Billion dollar budget, a revenue neutral sports program is a bonus. Even at a loss, it should just be considered part of the marketing department.

Do people think that guided tours makes money? No. How about TV advertising. That costs money just the same. Athletics is marketing. For UConn is built the entire university in the 90s for christs sake!

sent from my Galaxy Note 2 using tapatalk

I've disagreed with this point of view for a very long time now.
Colleges are slashing programs and raising tuition. The very ground of universities is being radically rearranged as we speak. The fundraising people speak of is counted as athletic department donations (look at the budgets, contributions in the tens of millions are counted as revenue). Many schools that played this game with sports have failed. Andrew Zimbalist, a researcher on this issue, thinks the marketing aspect is wildly overblown. His research shows that in less than 10% of the moves to pump up athletics has there been any residual benefit for the universities. Mostly, he sees them as losing ground because of the outlay. There are more schools rising into the top 100 rankings WITHOUT D1 football than those without. As schools like Rutgers and Syracuse drop drastically in the rankings, schools like Boston U. rise.

 

[CL82]

What about UConnis case? Does UConn 2000 and all that happened afterward occur if without the popularity and success of the men's and woman's BB teams?

 

[Penfield]

What about UConn case? Does UConn 2000 and all that happened afterward occur if without the popularity and success of the men's and woman's BB teams?

No.

But there are other schools that are very popular in certain sports and are not climbing the ranks. Example - Kentucky.

We have a special set of circumstates that is for sure.

 

[bmayuc]

I've disagreed with this point of view for a very long time now.
Colleges are slashing programs and raising tuition. The very ground of universities is being radically rearranged as we speak. The fundraising people speak of is counted as athletic department donations (look at the budgets, contributions in the tens of millions are counted as revenue). Many schools that played this game with sports have failed. Andrew Zimbalist, a researcher on this issue, thinks the marketing aspect is wildly overblown. His research shows that in less than 10% of the moves to pump up athletics has there been any residual benefit for the universities. Mostly, he sees them as losing ground because of the outlay. There are more schools rising into the top 100 rankings WITHOUT D1 football than those without. As schools like Rutgers and Syracuse drop drastically in the rankings, schools like Boston U. rise.

How valuable is 20000 adult alumni coming together for 6 home gamez? 7500 for 20 mens games and 20 womens games? How much fundraising, continuity, culture does that build. How many kids get to play collefe athletics? How many kids go to UConn games and grow to love the university (me). Alot of things go into athletics programs that arent strictly dollars and cents. My point being, if you have a 50 million athletics budget that comes even close to even ( or in our case operates at a gain, its like printing free money and press.

sent from my Galaxy Note 2 using tapatalk

 

[upstater]

How valuable is 20000 adult alumni coming together for 6 home gamez? 7500 for 20 mens games and 20 womens games? How much fundraising, continuity, culture does that build. How many kids get to play collefe athletics? How many kids go to UConn games and grow to love the university (me). Alot of things go into athletics programs that arent strictly dollars and cents. My point being, if you have a 50 million athletics budget that comes even close to even ( or in our case operates at a gain, its like printing free money and press.

sent from my Galaxy Note 2 using tapatalk

It doesn't ever operate at a gain. That's the point. Could the money be better spent elsewhere?

I trust the studies that look at the question and come up with an unequivocal yes.

Again, my post already addressed fundraising and contributions. These are indeed equivalent to alumni "love" as you put it. The schools outside D1 football do as well or better than the schools inside.

Also, this is solely about football, since D1 basketball does not cost anywhere near as much, and there are 400 schools that participate in the latter.

 

[upstater]

What about UConnis case? Does UConn 2000 and all that happened afterward occur if without the popularity and success of the men's and woman's BB teams?

UConn and BC may be very rare cases. The question is, does the lightbulb go on at the state house eventually? UConn was funded at the very bottom nationally until UConn 2000. Having watched school athletics over the decades, I'd say that yes UConn sports built enthusiasm. The same sort of thing doesn't happen elsewhere however. Conn. had a chronically underfunded higher education system. You have to wonder whether it would have ever funded it more. Remember, in the 1970s, the SUNYs all ramped up education and programs, rather than sports, and now they are landing a good amount of research funds, they joined the AAU, and the students are just as good as UConn students, all with little to no investment in athletics until recently--and that recent investment is a big mistake.

 

[storrsroars]

Here's an interesting article on the future of youth baseball that pits the USSSA (semi-pro/BCS) vs. Little League (amateur-"ish"/NCAA) with the conclusion that paying 9-year-olds to play is our inevitable future.

The parallels are similar to the projected college football schism. Schools may have to eventually decide if they're football factories of educational institutions and align themselves accordingly.

Hockey is already stupid expensive for parents. And we've seen the growth in influence of the AAU (the crooked one, not the academic one) in hoops.

Could be in the near future there really won't be any "student-athletes".

 

[huskymedic]

Here's an interesting article on the future of youth baseball that pits the USSSA (semi-pro/BCS) vs. Little League (amateur-"ish"/NCAA) with the conclusion that paying 9-year-olds to play is our inevitable future.

The parallels are similar to the projected college football schism. Schools may have to eventually decide if they're football factories of educational institutions and align themselves accordingly.

Hockey is already stupid expensive for parents. And we've seen the growth in influence of the AAU (the crooked one, not the academic one) in hoops.

Could be in the near future there really won't be any "student-athletes".

This is going on in all youth sports now-a-days. Travel hockey, soccer, basketball, baseball, lacrosse... Multi-sport stars are becoming fewer and fewer due to specialization and expected year round commitment.

 

[upstater]

This is going on in all youth sports now-a-days. Travel hockey, soccer, basketball, baseball, lacrosse... Multi-sport stars are becoming fewer and fewer due to specialization and expected year round commitment.

This is very true. Out of frustration with my daughter's youth soccer club (total mayhem), we drove 20 minutes further out to a US Soccer Academy team that is subsidized/sponsored by the New England Revolution (MLS). In just a few sessions, my daughter learned more than she had in months. They also have funding to train poorer kids, mainly from the city. They hardly ever scrimmage, it's just straight drills for an hour and a half. My daughter actually prefers this over the chaos of scrimmaging at her former club. But the thing is, she has to stay with that house league club until she's 9, because the youth academies don't have travel teams until the age of 9 (which isn't a bad thing). For now, she can only train with the US Soccer affiliated team.

 

[HuskyHawk]

What about UConnis case? Does UConn 2000 and all that happened afterward occur if without the popularity and success of the men's and woman's BB teams?

UConn's situation, and potentially, UMass' situation, are different. New England publics were historically underfunded compared with peer institutions in other parts of the country. Tuitions were higher, and facilities worse. I always assumed that this was because no New England public is the top school in its state, and in most cases, they aren't close or are behind several schools. UMass has it worst, and can't crack the top 10 in MA. UConn basketball encouraged the state to take a different approach, and we've seen the results.

 

[huskypantz]

God no.

You don't want that? So you want schools with the most money to lure players in with higher annual subsidies? Isn't that just the rich getting richer? Paying players should not impact how attractive a school is to a potential recruit, it should be a nonissue.