Player Compensation

[Hurtlocker 2208]

New CBS report:

Lawsuit has conferences quietly preparing for the likelihood of compensating players

Alston vs NCAA could open up a whole new world of how scholarships and every benefit are handled.  Gets its day in court on the 18th.

Quote

Conferences are quietly preparing for the sea-changing possibility they can compensate players above current NCAA limits, significantly altering the longstanding NCAA amateurism model, according to interviews and documents obtained by CBS Sports.

A judge in the ongoing Alston vs. NCAA trial will conduct a final hearing on Dec. 18 pertaining to closing arguments. She will then decide -- likely early in 2019 -- whether scholarship limits imposed by the association violate anti-trust laws.

If the plaintiffs win, there is concern among the Power Five that a Wild West culture could take hold. The last time conferences oversaw athlete compensation was 1956 before the advent of TV, rights fees, agents and riches from the NFL and NBA.

Part of the concern is that Power Five leagues flush with cash might not be able to help themselves.

"It's harder than ever to defend [the current NCAA model]," said Tim Nevius, a former NCAA enforcement officer currently in private practice in New York.

Fearing what would amount to an open marketplace, a handful of conferences have notified officials within their leagues not to discuss the case outside their conferences for fear of collusion accusations. If conferences shared information on how to compensate athletes, that in itself could be interpreted as a way to cap scholarship benefits. That fear of collusion is based in part on rival league administrators even speaking casually about the outcome of the case.

Example: If the plaintiffs win, as expected, the SEC could theoretically compensate athletes with cars. Meanwhile, another league could offer … better cars or apartments or …

While that's an extreme example, it cuts to the heart of that Wild West scenario. The NCAA has long defended its amateurism model that limits scholarships to room, books, board, tuition and a cost of attendance stipend. The plaintiffs argue that artificially caps the true value of a scholarship.

The stakes are laid out in a memo obtained by CBS Sports from the Sun Belt Conference's general counsel to commissioner Karl Benson.

"… it is important to avoid making public statements or participating in interviews where you could be commenting on amateurism, how amateurism may have changed over time [and] the types of relief and injunction requested by plaintiffs," the memo reads.

The memo concluded: "You also may find that other commissioners are reluctant to speak about their conferences will do if the final decision someday is that each conference will set its own grant-in-aid rules."

Sources indicate that similar concerns have been shared with administrators in the SEC and other conferences. CBS Sports approached several commissioners for reactions; their responses reflect the sensitive nature of the case.

Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany was coy when asked if there had been any discussion within his conference for a day when conferences are free to compensate players above current limits.

"Any discussion?" Delany responded. He did not elaborate.

Delany once said his conference would drop down to Division III before giving up on the current collegiate model.

"After the [Alston] decision, I may have some comments. Not in advance," he added.

Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby: "I don't have any expectation on it at all. I don't know what it will entail. … I'm not going to hypothesize on it. It's before the court. We're going to have to wait how it turns out."

Privately, though, there seems to be a general a feeling the plaintiffs will win, setting off alarms with which the NCAA is familiar. Alston is not the first legal challenge to the NCAA's hide-bound amateurism model. But the cumulative effect of all those court cases may be a chipping away of the NCAA's DNA. Without that one-of-a-kind amateurism model that exists nowhere else in the world, critics have wondered whether the NCAA would have any remaining worth.

Reacting to an Alston win, conferences at least have to consider what sort of compensation they would offer. That's what makes Alston unique. Those plaintiffs have found their best chances of winning are to endorse a model that leaves compensation up to the conferences.

In significant issues like this, conferences don't agree on much of anything.

In court documents, the NCAA basically confirmed what Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick suggested to CBS Sports in October. The NCAA inferred that conference autonomy in Alston would lead to a "fracturing of the existing … conferences."

Swarbrick said with conferences free to name their price, conference realignment could hinge on the compensation philosophies of those leagues. Once again, theoretically, if the SEC offered cars, how would that impact recruiting? What sort of "arms race" would that touch off with other conferences?

If the plaintiffs prevail, the NCAA is more than likely to mount a vigorous appeal process. That's what happened in O'Bannon vs. NCAA in 2014. The court ruled that the NCAA's control of an athlete's name, image and likeness were an illegal restraint of trade.  On appeal, judge Claudia Wilken's ruling that $5,000 per year be put in a trust for each qualifying athlete was struck down.

The U.S. Supreme Court refused the NCAA's request to hear the case. There's little doubt the NCAA would appeal a unfavorable verdict all the way to the land's highest court once again. But that doesn't mean the Supreme Court would hear that case either.

Wilken is overseeing the Alston case as well.

"I think the plaintiffs are going to win," Nevius said.

Asked about the Alston case, NCAA president Mark Emmert said, "It's a complex legal case. We've been making our legal arguments. I like our legal arguments. It will be in the hand of the judge and then we'll wait and see what the outcome is. I have some level of confidence that no matter what the outcome, both sides are going to appeal the case so this is going to take a while."

One thing is for sure: The lawsuits will keep on coming. Shawne Alston is a former West Virginia football player who filed suit in the Northern District of California in 2014. He claimed the NCAA and Power Five conferences conspired to fix the value of a full scholarship.

That came in the same court where O'Bannon vs. NCAA was heard. That preceded White vs. NCAA in 2006. In that case, the plaintiffs similarly argued the difference between the actual cost of attendance and the NCAA caps on scholarships was an anti-trust violation. The NCAA settled for $120 million that was distributed to a class of athletes from 2002-08.

In 2015, the NCAA settled a portion of the Alston complaint for $208 million. That affected athletes who did not get the cost-of-attendance stipend from 2009-17. The average amount received by those former athletes is $6,700.

"It's not even the seven-year locust' it's the every-year locust," Tom McMillen said of the court challenges. "You're going to have litigation."

McMillen is president of Lead1 Association, the organization that represents FBS athletic directors.

The Alston plaintiffs have gone to great lengths to argue increased player compensation would not impact consumer demand. In fact, since cost of attendance was implemented in 2015, graduation rates have rose at the same time athletes are making more money just for being … athletes. Cost of attendance stipends generally average $5,000-$7,000 per player.

The plaintiffs changed their tack in Alston, arguing that compensation should be an option decided by the conferences. One expert testified it is "a fundamental economic truth … that each conference is a distinct sports league …"

Because of what amounts to those athletic fiefdoms, sometimes it's hard to get conferences to agree on much. For 50 years, 1906-56, the NCAA allowed conferences to determine compensation. Then it got complicated. The NCAA established an enforcement division. Television became more intrusive, eventually funding the conferences and the NCAA itself with its rights fees.

If conferences took over, they would most likely have to establish their own enforcement staffs. At that point, the question would have to be asked: Why is there an NCAA at all?

The plaintiffs argue that benefits over and above tuition have been paid for years without a negative impact on athletes or the amateur model. Most recently, $4,000 is available to each family of a Final Four participant to travel to the games. Bowl gifts (capped at $550 per player) seemingly are a reward for playing football.

While at Arkansas, former coach Bret Bielema once told CBS Sports that Razorbacks athletes could capitalize on such allowable benefits totaling almost $100,000 over a four-year period.

In its closing brief, the NCAA said six witnesses testified that consumers value amateurism. Yes, but exactly is amateurism? Historically, it has been a moving target that satisfies the NCAA's needs at the time. Five years ago, that current cost of attendance -- paying athletes to supplement their scholarship -- would have been a violation. Now, it's a bedrock to student-athlete welfare.

Those who believe paying players would cut into fans' interest should look around. The players are already are paid directly and indirectly in many instances. The NCAA allows schools to pay insurance premiums for high draft picks in football that can reach $80,000.

The NCAA has argued that "pay for GPA" – grade point average incentives conferences could adopt -- would establish "perverse incentives" forcing athletes to take easier classes. It should be noted that coaches regularly get contract bonuses for reaching a benchmark team GPAs. Also, in many instances, players already are encouraged to take classes that don't interfere with their sport.

But those are mere talking points for now.

"The worse thing you can do it prejudge a judge and the decision they're about to make," Delany said. "I really appreciate the arguments that have been made on our behalf. The judge will make her decision, and we'll respect that. This is a country of the rule of law."

 

[Catdaddyhorn 3444]

If the NCAA would've just given in and welcomed in the Olympic model a decade back they wouldn't even be facing these lawsuits that threaten to usher in a system no one wants.

[po elvis 2070]

Because the current model they have a hard time getting the athletes to want to come to school just for the scholarships.

[El Hornarino 371]

Quote

If the plaintiffs win, as expected, the SEC could theoretically compensate athletes with cars

Yeah, SEC could "theoretically" do that.

[Yesh 904]

Imagine a world in which it was legal to compensate players up to any amount, with the only rule being the money had to come from the Athletic department only, in other words they couldn't dip into "education" money.

85 scholarship players x $100,000 per year is $8.5 million.  How many schools could fit that into their AD budget?

[Zavala 1384]

6 hours ago, po elvis said:

Because the current model they have a hard time getting the athletes to want to come to school just for the scholarships.

Hey sometimes it ends up with a happy ending

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/look-cardale-jones-who-once-said-we-aint-come-here-to-play-school-graduates/

[Sgt Hulk 13648]

Give em a couple hundred grand a year and charge them tuition like the common man. Or give em a couple hundred grand a year and reduce the amount by the tuition they would have to pay. 

[sushihorn 3233]

1 hour ago, Yesh said:

Imagine a world in which it was legal to compensate players up to any amount, with the only rule being the money had to come from the Athletic department only, in other words they couldn't dip into "education" money.

85 scholarship players x $100,000 per year is $8.5 million.  How many schools could fit that into their AD budget?

The trend in D-1/FBS football has been towards more parity for 50 years.  Scholarship limits, recruiting regulations, etc.  Any arrangement of this nature would hit that trend like a tsunami.  It would become nearly impossible for new schools to build a program at this level.  I suspect many of the existing FBS schools would drop out as well.

[ztejas 43273]

2 hours ago, El Hornarino said:

Yeah, SEC could "theoretically" do that.

I think they meant to say:

"If the plaintiffs win, as expected, the SEC could theoretically compensate athletes with cars without violating NCAA regulations"

[formermav43 4599]

58 minutes ago, Sgt Hulk said:

Give em a couple hundred grand a year and charge them tuition like the common man. Or give em a couple hundred grand a year and reduce the amount by the tuition they would have to pay. 

And rent. And meals. And transportation. Etc.

[destroya 367]

55 minutes ago, sushihorn said:

The trend in D-1/FBS football has been towards more parity for 50 years.  Scholarship limits, recruiting regulations, etc.  Any arrangement of this nature would hit that trend like a tsunami.  It would become nearly impossible for new schools to build a program at this level.  I suspect many of the existing FBS schools would drop out as well.

There's a glut of FBS schools, so I would characterize any schools dropping down a division as a correction.  Are schools like App State, Texas State, North Texas, Coastal Carolina, Liberty best served by being in FBS?

[High Plains Drifter 10984]

1 hour ago, Sgt Hulk said:

Give em a couple hundred grand a year and charge them tuition like the common man. Or give em a couple hundred grand a year and reduce the amount by the tuition they would have to pay. 

and room and board and lab fees and parking permit fees and and and....

[Smax 3800]

Will be interesting to see what impact this will have on all the other collegiate sports

[High Plains Drifter 10984]

53 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

And rent. And meals. And transportation. Etc.

well shit.

[sushihorn 3233]

29 minutes ago, destroya said:

There's a glut of FBS schools, so I would characterize any schools dropping down a division as a correction.  Are schools like App State, Texas State, North Texas, Coastal Carolina, Liberty best served by being in FBS?

That's a question of philosophy and preference.  I'm just pointing out that it goes against at least a half century of those things as far as the NCAA is concerned.  It obviously doesn't affect Texas so I don't have a dog in this one.

[ChickenSandwich 9798]

pay them, they pay taxes.  Figure the shit out.

 

IMO, treat them the same as Olympic amateur athletes

[Barry_McCokiner 160]

2 hours ago, Sgt Hulk said:

Give em a couple hundred grand a year and charge them tuition like the common man. Or give em a couple hundred grand a year and reduce the amount by the tuition they would have to pay. 

But then cut the ones that don't make it.  

[Doc Reeves 6434]

19 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

pay them, they pay taxes.  Figure the shit out.

 

IMO, treat them the same as Olympic amateur athletes

 

Yeah, see the problem is there are literally hundreds of multi-million dollar slush fund accounts pushing money to this kids uncle that kids mom.

Once you admit income and start paying taxes, it opens up all of the financial transactions to sever criminal penalty. 

 

Edited December 13, 2018 by Doc Reeves

[Phoenix 65]

The NCAA keeps ignoring this problem, and it's not going away. It's a difficult problem to fix, admittedly, but ignoring it isn't helping.

[SDG 3319]

1 hour ago, Smax said:

Will be interesting to see what impact this will have on all the other collegiate sports

This; doesn’t tittle 9 make it nearly impossible to pay just your revenue sport athletes?  If that’s the case I think we’ll see a lot fewer crew and wrestling teams in the near future. 

[Izhmash 558]

Send them to the NFL and let the NFL pay them.  For those that can't get into the NFL, give them a scholarship and let them develop.  Let each individual measure their risk re: each path and let the market play itself out.  The 1% that are great, will go to NFL and get paid.  The other 99% will get a degree and work towards NFL opportunities or a well paid career.  Not sure why the Universities / NCAA need to get in between the students and NFL.  If the NFL wants to use the universities as a development league, let them pay for that.

[sushihorn 3233]

4 minutes ago, Phoenix said:

The NCAA keeps ignoring this problem, and it's not going away. It's a difficult problem to fix, admittedly, but ignoring it isn't helping.

Until and unless the athletes are paid market rates that will always be true.  There are 129 FBS teams and 85 scholarships per team, so just under 11,000 football players at that level.  There are 32 NFL teams, with 53 player roster limit and 80 including the practice squad.  That is 1,700 roster players or 2,560 total.  So the ratio of FBS to NFL players is somewhere between 6:1 and 4:1.  Rookie minimum is $480k so a similar calculation would imply 80-120k for FBS.  But of course the NFL's 32 teams generate a LOT more money than the 129 FBS teams.  I doubt more than 50-60 teams could survive even paying $100k to 85 players.

And even that wouldn't stop under the table payments to the better athletes.  Are we ready for multi-million paydays for 5-stars and 1-2% of that for the rest of FBS players?  That's what it would take to bring everything into the open.

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

11 minutes ago, SDG said:

This; doesn’t tittle 9 make it nearly impossible to pay just your revenue sport athletes?  If that’s the case I think we’ll see a lot fewer crew and wrestling teams in the near future. 

This is an interesting point. Is it standard pay? Does a member of the woman's golf team at Appalachia State get the same as the QB at Bama?

 

[ChickenSandwich 9798]

10 minutes ago, Izhmash said:

Send them to the NFL and let the NFL pay them.  For those that can't get into the NFL, give them a scholarship and let them develop.  Let each individual measure their risk re: each path and let the market play itself out.  The 1% that are great, will go to NFL and get paid.  The other 99% will get a degree and work towards NFL opportunities or a well paid career.  Not sure why the Universities / NCAA need to get in between the students and NFL.  If the NFL wants to use the universities as a development league, let them pay for that.

agreed 100%

If there is a job for you in football at 18 right out of high school, by all means go for it.  But if not, the university shouldn't be responsible for paying them when they have a "Zero" dollar value to the NFL or CFL or Ricky FL.  Maybe the University could be entitled to the players future earnings and pay them a salary while on scholarship.  The University is what is driving the value and development of the un-drafted player, preparing them for a life after college.  Like all most students and fields of study at the university.  There is value in the University brand and development.  Opening the draft out of high school lets the schools off the hook as the players choosing to go to school know they have not established a monetary value for their service in the professional world.

This is an NFL problem if handled correctly.  The NFL could also draft a player and then pay for their school and development until a better alternative (GLeague ex) is available. 

[SDG 3319]

13 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

This is an interesting point. Is it standard pay? Does a member of the woman's golf team at Appalachia State get the same as the QB at Bama?

 

From NCAA.org.  My point was more based on same school comparisons so the woman’s golf team at app state must receive the same benefits as the football team at app state.  

Quote

Athletics programs are considered educational programs and activities. There are three basic parts of Title IX as it applies to athletics: 

1. Participation: Title IX requires that women and men be provided equitable opportunities to participate in sports. Title IX does not require institutions to offer identical sports but an equal opportunity to play;                          
2. Scholarships: Title IX requires that female and male student-athletes receive athletics scholarship dollars proportional to their participation; and                          
3. Other benefits: Title IX requires the equal treatment of female and male student-athletes in the provisions of: (a) equipment and supplies; (b) scheduling of games and practice times; (c) travel and daily allowance/per diem; (d) access to tutoring; (e) coaching, (f) locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities; (g) medical and training facilities and services; (h) housing and dining facilities and services; (i) publicity and promotions; (j) support services and (k) recruitment of student-athletes.

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/inclusion/title-ix-frequently-asked-questions

 

so what I’m implying is that schools will cut male non-rev sports and keep only enough female sports to match male rev sports. 

Edited December 13, 2018 by SDG

[ChickenSandwich 9798]

16 minutes ago, sushihorn said:

Until and unless the athletes are paid market rates that will always be true.  There are 129 FBS teams and 85 scholarships per team, so just under 11,000 football players at that level.  There are 32 NFL teams, with 53 player roster limit and 80 including the practice squad.  That is 1,700 roster players or 2,560 total.  So the ratio of FBS to NFL players is somewhere between 6:1 and 4:1.  Rookie minimum is $480k so a similar calculation would imply 80-120k for FBS.  But of course the NFL's 32 teams generate a LOT more money than the 129 FBS teams.  I doubt more than 50-60 teams could survive even paying $100k to 85 players.

And even that wouldn't stop under the table payments to the better athletes.  Are we ready for multi-million paydays for 5-stars and 1-2% of that for the rest of FBS players?  That's what it would take to bring everything into the open.

Opening the draft and the NFL to 18 year olds solves this problem.  Let the actual market set the rate and the athlete make their decision on their future.  If they aren't drafted their value is ZERO in the professional world, and the schools shouldn't be responsible for anything more than they are already providing.  Again, unless the player wants to pay the school of their future potential earnings. 

The tone that the players are treated as dirt and completely exploited is way overblown by the media. 

"

-- High school senior players eventually drafted by an NFL team: About nine in 10,000, or 0.09 percent.

That's about the chance you have an IQ above 150, as measured by the Stanford-Binet test. The average IQ of Ph.D. students is 130.

"

The issue is the incredibly small amount of players who do have immediate value not created by the university, and not the other 99% of college athletes.

[ChickenSandwich 9798]

2 minutes ago, SDG said:

From NCAA.org.  My point was more based on same school comparisons so the woman’s golf team at app state must receive the same benefits as the football team at app state.  

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/inclusion/title-ix-frequently-asked-questions

expand Texas POM and Cheer-leading squads to 85.  Disband all other non-revenue producing sports and make them club sports

[formermav43 4599]

24 minutes ago, sushihorn said:

Until and unless the athletes are paid market rates that will always be true.  There are 129 FBS teams and 85 scholarships per team, so just under 11,000 football players at that level.  There are 32 NFL teams, with 53 player roster limit and 80 including the practice squad.  That is 1,700 roster players or 2,560 total.  So the ratio of FBS to NFL players is somewhere between 6:1 and 4:1.  Rookie minimum is $480k so a similar calculation would imply 80-120k for FBS.  But of course the NFL's 32 teams generate a LOT more money than the 129 FBS teams.  I doubt more than 50-60 teams could survive even paying $100k to 85 players.

And even that wouldn't stop under the table payments to the better athletes.  Are we ready for multi-million paydays for 5-stars and 1-2% of that for the rest of FBS players?  That's what it would take to bring everything into the open.

I’m not convinced that’s the market rate, even knowing that’s just a back of the envelope calculation. Are the players really that valuable? Or is the value created by the school irrespective of the players?

Lets imagine the NFL established a minor league where you could bypass college and play professionally immediately. Are you interested enough in Caden Stearns to go watch him ply his trade for the San Antonio Steers? Or do you continue to pay good money to watch the Longhorns, even if they’re starting Case McCoy at QB?

Did you enjoy watching Isaiah Taylor at Texas? Did you follow his career with the Rio Grande Valley Vipers? Why is the G League not more popular than NCAA basketball, even with higher quality play?

I’d argue that the players are essentially worthless-they’re completely replaceable. The school creates the value. That’s the only reason we watch, and we’d continue to watch even if there was an lternative minor league that paid players straight out of high school and slightly degraded the talent pool. 

Edited December 13, 2018 by formermav43

[sushihorn 3233]

  @formermav43 and @ChickenSandwich both make excellent points.  I'm trying to just get some sort of WAG estimate of what is possible, not what I'd like to see happen.  I've worked in securities markets for most of my adult life and the truth of the matter is that something is worth exactly what another person is willing to pay you for it.  The one and done situation that NCAA basketball has with the NBA is hardly ideal but something similar would be a big step in the right direction for CFB.

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

9 minutes ago, SDG said:

From NCAA.org.  My point was more based on same school comparisons so the woman’s golf team at app state must receive the same benefits as the football team at app state.  

Which will be met with a quick lawsuit from someone on the woman's golf team at App State. Or you open up a BIGGER can of worms that teams like Bama can just outbid everyone for talent (wait...that's already happening)

[David Dennison 18683]

At the very least, let them make as much money as they can on their name and likeness. Even the ones who never make it in the NFL should be able make money off of their collegiate fame.

[formermav43 4599]

10 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

At the very least, let them make as much money as they can on their name and likeness. Even the ones who never make it in the NFL should be able make money off of their collegiate fame.

That seems perfectly reasonable.

Which is why it probably won’t happen.

[Catdaddyhorn 3444]

^

^

That is called the Olympic model. When this topic comes up for some reason everyone goes to their corners and people bring up schools paying athletes directly as if that's even necessary.

 

 

[Beau Vine 54016]

1 hour ago, Cheeseweasel said:

This is an interesting point. Is it standard pay? Does a member of the woman's golf team at Appalachia State get the same as the QB at Bama?

 

Does App State's women's golf coach get paid the same salary as Nick Saban?

[Beau Vine 54016]

3 minutes ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

^

^

That is called the Olympic model. When this topic comes up for some reason everyone goes to their corners and people bring up schools paying athletes directly as if that's even necessary.

 

 

This is the fucking truth.  

[Catdaddyhorn 3444]

58 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

I’m not convinced that’s the market rate, even knowing that’s just a back of the envelope calculation. Are the players really that valuable? Or is the value created by the school irrespective of the players?

Lets imagine the NFL established a minor league where you could bypass college and play professionally immediately. Are you interested enough in Caden Stearns to go watch him ply his trade for the San Antonio Steers? Or do you continue to pay good money to watch the Longhorns, even if they’re starting Case McCoy at QB?

Did you enjoy watching Isaiah Taylor at Texas? Did you follow his career with the Rio Grande Valley Vipers? Why is the G League not more popular than NCAA basketball, even with higher quality play?

I’d argue that the players are essentially worthless-they’re completely replaceable. The school creates the value. That’s the only reason we watch, and we’d continue to watch even if there was an lternative minor league that paid players straight out of high school and slightly degraded the talent pool. 

The idea that a player like Johnny Manziel had absolutely nothing to do with his school raising half a billion dollars is laughable. The obvious answer is there's a happy medium between the schools/alumni attachment and an individual player's appeal.  This is no different than any other sports entity.  Ultimately we're all rooting for laundry,  but they're is some tangible benefit that some players themselves bring to the table as well. 

Edited December 13, 2018 by Catdaddyhorn

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

3 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Does App State's women's golf coach get paid the same salary as Nick Saban?

No, because they are not subject to Title IX:

Participation: Title IX requires that women and men be provided equitable opportunities to participate in sports. Title IX does not require institutions to offer identical sports but an equal opportunity to play;                          

Scholarships: Title IX requires that female and male student-athletes receive athletics scholarship dollars proportional to their participation; and                          

Other benefits: Title IX requires the equal treatment of female and male student-athletes in the provisions of: (a) equipment and supplies; (b) scheduling of games and practice times; (c) travel and daily allowance/per diem; (d) access to tutoring; (e) coaching, (f) locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities; (g) medical and training facilities and services; (h) housing and dining facilities and services; (i) publicity and promotions; (j) support services and (k) recruitment of student-athletes.

I'm guessing any form of payment would be considered a "scholarship".

[Tex Long 4355]

Title IX is "Separate but Equal" illusion. 

[Hurtlocker 2208]

4 hours ago, formermav43 said:

And rent. And meals. And transportation. Etc.

And hookers.

[RollLeft 5040]

I'm not against it, but i'm not a proponent either.  It's not good for the sport, but ok.  Its not going to play out like the athletes think it will, but ok.  

Here is a rough draft of what i propose.  

No freshmen can be compensated above their scholarship/room/board/per diem their initial season for any reason.

After their freshmen year, all athletes have a choice.  Before each season they may choose to continue on their scholarship or choose to not be on scholarship and accept what the market provides, but you don't get both and you have to choose. 

All boosters or market contributors who wish to donate may do so PRIVATELY, to the extent of the cost of their room/board/ per diem, directly to the university in the name of the student without fear of a financial audit.    

All boosters or market contributors who wish to donate, in excess of the cost of an athletic scholarship/room/board/per diem, may do so but they along with the athlete must declare this to the NCAA PUBLICLY and open themselves up to a financial audit by the NCAA.  Each run the risk of no longer being able to perform or profit from collegiate sports.

-Contributions to athletes from market contributors, who are listed by the NCAA as commonly known partners (ie. Nike, apparel/shoe companies, gaming, soda or any other companies accepted to profit from collegiate sports) and are non-boosters, are limited to contributions to the extent they may have profited by that athlete and their university.  Contributions must be equal parts to the athlete and university sports team.    

-Contributions to athletes from boosters who are not listed by the NCAA are limited.  Any contribution to any individual athlete must be matched with an equal contribution to the athletic department of that athlete along with an equal contribution to the academics of that university.  Up to 10k total per Sophomore 20k for Juniors and 100k for seniors.  

-Contributions to athletes from the University shall be given ONLY when the athletic department is net positive.  Equal bonuses, at the discretion of the university and not to exceed net income, shall be paid to every player of a team that receives television and /or marketing revenue. 

Something like that.   

 

 

[CooterBrown 17943]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

At the very least, let them make as much money as they can on their name and likeness. Even the ones who never make it in the NFL should be able make money off of their collegiate fame.

Yep. You don't get shit for playing but if Nike, Oakley, Trojan Magnums wants to sign you to an endorsement deal, go for it.

[Beau Vine 54016]

1 hour ago, RollLeft said:

I'm not against it, but i'm not a proponent either.  It's not good for the sport, but ok.  Its not going to play out like the athletes think it will, but ok.  

Here is a rough draft of what i propose.  

No freshmen can be compensated above their scholarship/room/board/per diem their initial season for any reason.

After their freshmen year, all athletes have a choice.  Before each season they may choose to continue on their scholarship or choose to not be on scholarship and accept what the market provides, but you don't get both and you have to choose. 

All boosters or market contributors who wish to donate may do so PRIVATELY, to the extent of the cost of their room/board/ per diem, directly to the university in the name of the student without fear of a financial audit.    

All boosters or market contributors who wish to donate, in excess of the cost of an athletic scholarship/room/board/per diem, may do so but they along with the athlete must declare this to the NCAA PUBLICLY and open themselves up to a financial audit by the NCAA.  Each run the risk of no longer being able to perform or profit from collegiate sports.

-Contributions to athletes from market contributors, who are listed by the NCAA as commonly known partners (ie. Nike, apparel/shoe companies, gaming, soda or any other companies accepted to profit from collegiate sports) and are non-boosters, are limited to contributions to the extent they may have profited by that athlete and their university.  Contributions must be equal parts to the athlete and university sports team.    

-Contributions to athletes from boosters who are not listed by the NCAA are limited.  Any contribution to any individual athlete must be matched with an equal contribution to the athletic department of that athlete along with an equal contribution to the academics of that university.  Up to 10k total per Sophomore 20k for Juniors and 100k for seniors.  

-Contributions to athletes from the University shall be given ONLY when the athletic department is net positive.  Equal bonuses, at the discretion of the university and not to exceed net income, shall be paid to every player of a team that receives television and /or marketing revenue. 

Something like that.   

 

 

So you want to preserve the black market for freshmen.   Do you not understand that recruiting is where the majority of the graft occurs?

[RollLeft 5040]

Do i understand?  Yes.  Do i care?  No.  Take up your issue with the NFL.  We are talking compensating collegiate athletes.  If they are good enough to leave after their freshmen year they should be able to go.  They should have that choice. 

[ChickenSandwich 9798]

3 hours ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

The idea that a player like Johnny Manziel had absolutely nothing to do with his school raising half a billion dollars is laughable. The obvious answer is there's a happy medium between the schools/alumni attachment and an individual player's appeal.  This is no different than any other sports entity.  Ultimately we're all rooting for laundry,  but they're is some tangible benefit that some players themselves bring to the table as well. 

We could also say Johnny was worth nothing as an 18yr old and after his (paid$$) internship he was able to secure a multi million dollar contact in the NFL. That he squandered it is irrelevant. He still makes money from his likeness and Aggy happily foots the bill. 

How is this different from a University using a patent created from an intern and making millions from it?  Of which the intern is entitled to none of. 

[Lidig8r 1860]

So, if they are paid, do they become employees of the school? Presumably, they will be taxed on the direct pay. But then, does the fair market value of their room and board, tuition, books, etc. then become taxable events as well?

As employees, would they have the right to unionize? If so, could they strike? If schools refuse to pay a certain amount, would they be susceptible to claims of conspiracy and collusion?

[Blanton 170]

Fuck the NCAA.

”Title 9” has been exploited by rich internationals in non-revenue sports. 

[texashorne 1177]

We should all hope player compensation is capped and made fair to all colleges to participate.. I could think of 1 college that would sell their 1st born son for a Natty.

It would be the next dynasty. 

[Hurtlocker 2208]

More legal stuff...

For former athletes fighting NCAA amateurism rules, a muted victory

Quote

Excerpts:

"In a 104-page decision released Friday night — a ruling that is still being digested, analyzed, and debated this week by officials across college sports — Judge Claudia Wilken gave a technical victory to thousands of former college football and basketball players, but a moral victory to the NCAA and college conferences.

In her ruling in the case entitled, “National Collegiate Athletic Association Grant-In-Aid Cap Antitrust Litigation,” Wilken agreed with the athletes that NCAA rules capping their compensation at the value of a full scholarship violate antitrust law.

But as a legal remedy, Wilken stopped far short of the open market the athletes had sought, one in which each conference could set its own rules for what member schools could offer top recruits. Instead, she issued an injunction that forbids the NCAA from restricting “compensation or benefits related to education.”

In the injunction, Wilken included a long list of potential perks that currently are prohibited by NCAA guidelines, such as computers, science equipment and musical instruments, as well as scholarships for graduate degrees, vocational school, or even paid post-graduate internships."

 

"While Wilken spent the bulk of the 104 pages tossing aside arguments advanced by the NCAA in support of its current restrictions — rules that had “severe anticompetitive effects” and “harmed” athletes by depriving them of “compensation they would otherwise receive for their athletic services,” Wilken wrote — she ultimately agreed with the NCAA on one critically important assertion: People who watch and follow college sports value the fact that the athletes are not professionals.

“The Court does credit the importance to consumer demand of maintaining a distinction between college and professional sports,” Wilken wrote. Allowing schools to pay athletes, Wilken wrote, “could diminish the popularity of college sports as a product distinct from professional sports.”

These passages are why the NCAA, in a statement about a case it technically lost, celebrated as if it had won a partial victory."

TLDR: NCAA can't ban academic benefits, but college sports should remain amateur. 

[rickyspub 801]

So it looks like a school could offer a player a paid post-graduate internship along with access to grad school. I guess you could try to entice a graduating player who still has a year of eligibility with a well-paid internship to stay for one more year rather than go into the NFL draft. I am not sure any school could easily come up with a 6 figure internship, but I suppose this ruling makes it legal. 

[Machinator 32098]