Judge ruled that the NCAA cannot legally restrict compensation to athletes. The door for college sports to become professional just got opened.
And for those saying this won't get abused and it's only for small payments to get by, she issued a permanent injunction against any overly restrictive restraints. Essentially, the door has been opened for athletes to negotiate contracts in college.
The age of amateurism is officially dead.
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
This is gonna get good....
Oh. Man.
I have learned in my time on this earth that you can NOT get one over on "the man".
Scenario: Universities do hold one thing over student athletes. 3 years removed from high school to be eligible for the draft. This can go bad real fast if institutions decide that since players are entitled to compensation from revenue, scholarships no longer carry weight for paying for education. you can either have a free education or try to get bank from revenue generated from Sports and pay for your own education... My bet is that 95% of athletes would sign a waver declaring a free education. And only the Elite high school recruits would opt for revenue sharing.... Just my thought.
i get players wanting to be compensated for the amount of revenue they bring the school, and i feel there should be some form of compensation, but something about this just feels wrong. i think that in its purest form (college football and other sports), these guys that we pull for and follow all year are student athletes, students first. education has gotten devalued in the mass market of college football and basketball. yes these kids need to look at their futures and have their best interest in mind but something about this ruling just bugs me. there are so many intricacies that people could argue over about this that i dont even want to try and dive into it.
we are about to see a major major shift in collegiate sports as we know it over the next few years
I'd agree with you IF football players had the opportunity to be signed professionally right out of high school. But because of the NFL rules, college football is a faux minor league. To me, the more interested aspect isn't compensation for college athletes. It is the potential long term effect on NFL anti-trust exemption status.
I don't know if paying players is how this works out. I do think the schools should pay for likeness rights of players. If someone orders a #3 jersey, then #3, as the player who made said jersey a commodity that someone wants to buy, deserves compensation. There is not a sector of society where your likeness can be used without compensation. Why people feel that college athletes should be exempt from this offends me and reeks of paternalism.
Which 3 though? Randall or Thomas?
Along those lines, which 4? Coleman or Ekanem? Or Royal or Wilson or Hall?
In the future, the jersey would probably have a name on the back.
What you'll probably see happen is that every school will permanently retire one number, to be used for jersey sales, much like you see at Texas A&M with the #12.
In fact, I could see every school go that direction. Selling the #12 to the fanbase (just have to figure out a way to do it while bypassing aTm's ridiculous trademark on the #12)
i bought a #5 jersey while tyrod was in school. i bought it because of tyrod and i would have no issues with him getting compensated for the #5 jersey sales that he brought in, im sure it was a alot. thats why a majority of people buy certain jersey #'s is for the player who is wearing it. itd be interesting how schools would set that up with kids getting some form of compensation for it.
Here's my question:
Who is more responsible for making the #3 jersey a commodity: Logan or Virginia Tech? If there were an opportunity for athletes to go pro out of high school and LT3 exercised this option, and wore #3 for some D-league team, how many jerseys would he sell? I'm guessing not many. Obviously every school puts their most popular players' jerseys on the racks and I completely understand why many think those players deserve a cut, but Virginia Tech would still move jerseys without LT3, but LT3 couldn't do it without Virginia Tech. The VT brand is just orders of magnitude bigger than any individual player's brand, and I'm not sure how you would determine where to draw that line.
I hope we see an NFL-subsidized d-league team soon that drafts kids out of high school. I imagine kids would quickly realize that without a university logo on their jersey, they would be about as popular as an average WNBA player, but no one could complain about not getting paid their market value.
Also, and this is kind of irrelevant, but I don't think NFL players are compensated for their jersey sales, at least not directly. 31 teams are in a revenue-sharing agreement, where they all evenly split the revenue of merchandise sales. Dallas is the only team that opted out.
This line is great:
And so true.
And to your point about revenue sharing - that's pretty much why the NFL works (at least to the extent that it does). They understand that parity strengthens their brand and that people don't want to see the Patriots play the Cowboys in the Superbowl every year. We'll see if the folks who run college football (ESPN, the universities, and the NCAA) understand that or not.
Wouldn't this be negotiated in salary contracts? I actually have no idea, but I'm guessing player agents would fight for something.
The way I read it, the NCAA actually didn't take too big of a hit with this ruling. They can still set a limit on paying players at any amount over $5,000, so while they will have to open up their market to a certain degree, by no means is this allowing a Johnny Manziel-type player to fully capitalize on all of his potential revenue streams. They still have significant power in capping player pay.
It could have been a lot worse for the NCAA...
"We'll see," said the zen master.
Sad day. I have a difficult time cheering for professionals.
Are you saying your support for Hokie alums ceases upon draft/graduation?
No.
This is simply just imho, and I'm relieved the judge saw it this way. Everyone is entitled to earn money in college except student athletes; I'm sorry but something is wrong with that picture for me. Bottom line, no one is being forced to pay anyone, only that you may not restrict a player from being compensated. Therefore if you decide to pay an athlete, it's because you decided he was worth x amount.
The almighty dollar has spoken. With Harvard's endowment fund, Alabama, Ohio State, Texas, Oregon, and USCw could possibly be in trouble. Makes me cry.
So you are saying a $50k - $60k education (tuition, room and board, etc) isn't considered financial compensation or that it is simply not enough? What about the kids who would not have gone to college if they didn't play sports and used their degree to create a better life than they had growing up? Should that $10k, $15k+ per year not be considered either? In my opinion, the colleges already pay the players it's just not in the traditional green currency that everyone wants.
You're entitled to your opinion on the matter, and again nobody ruled in favor of additional payments. My position is simple, we live in a free market society, whoever wants to pay anyone they deem worthy of payment to me should always be able to do so. If your boss felt you're receiving sufficient compensation for your work and another institution deemed you worthy of more, I'm sure you would embrace the opportunity to be valued appropriately. If every school feels they are giving enough then we shouldn't see anything change.
You know, the government and society at large make thousands of pages of regulations affecting the free-market. So while I'm a big fan of the concept of the free-market, color me just a little skeptical of the argument that this case turned on the concept of the free market being sacrosanct.
Doing so requires a review of all student restrictions at all institutions that accrue some measurable economic benefit from any of their students being enrolled.
So yes, your position is simple, but it opens a pandora's box of consequences - consequences that you seem either unaware of, or simply unconcerned with.
This is the problem with legislation through the courts. It ignores the often very complex set of circumstances and interwoven real-world minutiae (which frequently includes contradictory regulations to the law this court is about to make) that created a very specific set of circumstances, makes a ruling that throws the careful balance of all those considerations completely off plumb, and then the winning side rushes to pat itself on the back while moving on to the next Very Important Victim's group to champion and washing its hands of all the inevitable bad consequences it failed to consider.
I understand there will be consequences, some I can anticipate, and others I am unaware of. But personally, I would feel selfish to consider myself, and my beloved institution, before I considered the interest of the athletes. You may see it differently but I feel that when they risk life and limbs for sport, they deserve whatever anyone is willing to compensate them in return or for their likeness. You may feel they garner enough from the educational opportunities but if a school like Texas has more money to throw around and wants to give it to the best players in the country, then this is now considered earnings and I see nothing wrong with that.
Furthermore, if you think that the top schools in the country aren't already buying up player's interests through facility upgrades and coaching hires (not even mentioning bag men) then you're completely naive. Otherwise the top players in the country should flock to the best educational opportunities at ivy league schools instead of Oregon.
The NCAA has already sold out to revenue generation, which is why the BCS was such a bitch to get rid of and conference realignment completely disregards tradition. We just gave our basketball program an instant upgrade to relevancy with one (expensive) coaching hire, not because we improved our rankings as a research institution. One in which Boise st is unable to make; so let's try to be hypocritical less here please.
I'm sorry, but I see this very differently. They are choosing to play a game. They receive the opportunity for a free, quality education of their choice, housing, and as much food as they want, along with job training, tutoring, and free marketing with the opportunity to continue to play a game and make possibly several millions of dollars, and then retire after a very short career (relative to anyone else who works jobs outside of professional sports) with that free education if they choose to do so.
People who "risk life and limb" and deserve to be well compensated are those such as soldiers, police officers, and firefighters.
I'm sorry, but I'm not joining in on the pity party of the "plight of the college football player".
You don't need to join in on any pity party. And fortunately this is not our decision to make. What the judge did was relieve schools of such restrictions so institutions can decide for themselves how much they value certain athletes. I can't tell you how much a player is worth, but by what a school is willing/unwilling to pay, we'll all find out for ourselves.
I don't pretend to have answers to all the questions that this ruling is and will continue to generate. But phrases like "we live in a free market society" get tossed around a lot these days. And it's catchy in soundbite form.
However... what's often overlooked in this proclamation is that 'the market' is a phenomenon that usually works best when harnessed for the benefit of said society, not the other way around. Opening up the society of college football to market forces (more so than it already is) could drastically change the landscape of college athletics. And since CFB is wholly a discretionary expense for the fan, you gotta' consider whether the landscape that results is going to be one that fans will continue to support. You can't just say "free market."
Also something something Title IX.
As someone who likes to use the "we live in a free market society" line - it comes down to the fact that I think it is immoral to limit someone's income. The Student/Athlete should enter a contract with the school/NCAA. The school/NCAA should have control of the Student/Athlete's academics and athletics. They should not be allowed to limit/control other career decision (unrelated to academics or on field athletics) that the student/athlete chooses to persue. This includes camps, endorsements, jobs, etc.
they don't limit you. you can go play in Canadian league or Arena league immediately and turn pro. You have all the access you want to endorsement, camps, jobs, etc. The amateur status of college football is only one option that you can choose and it comes with a contract that has clear terms. It's your choice to accept or not. Is that not free market?
For example, I wanted to pursue a career in architecture. When I graduated I had my choice:
a) take a lower paying professional job at a unremarkable firm from the beginning, or
b) take an unpaid internship at a world famous company in hopes of vastly improving both my skill and attractiveness for future employment, thus raising my potential income level.
So do you mean to say that this is not free market? Because this is the epitome of free market. Sure, the decision sucks but it's one you freely make, and certainly not immoral.
But you could (theoretically) work an unrelated job while in school for money (whether that be waiting tables, doing freelance photography, gambling, etc). You could work a semi-related job, such as tutor a younger student, teach them how to use Revit or AutoCAD, for money. If Revit wanted to use you in an advertising campaign, you could accept payment to participate.
The NCAA limits player's abilities to get other jobs or collect revenue from other sources. If Wyatt Teller likes photography, and has the opportunity to sell the rights to a picture he took (for money), he can't. If Luther Maddy wants to organize a local football camp for kids, and get paid to coach them up, he can't. If Michael Brewer wants to be paid to appear in advertisements, he can't.
I understand that the players enter a contract with VT and the NCAA. This contract states that these players cannot accept money for things like this. I understand that there are other football related career paths that do not require players to agree to said rules. I am simply arguing that such a contract should be illegal, and is, at the very least, unethical. As long as the players' extracurricular activities do not compete against the NCAA or their university, they should be able to pursue said opportunities.
NOTE: I'm not at all suggesting that players should be "paid to play" but they should have the ability to accept payment to do legitimate, off the football field work.
And the average student can't come close to finding anything that pays what the average student-athlete gets. From a previous comment:
The student-athlete has freely chosen their path, and limited their income opportunities of their own volition.
Let's not pretend these benefits they traded those other opportunities for have no monetary value.
I don't disagree. But, as I explained in a comment below, this argument doesn't really makes sense. If a student athlete wants to improve his financial situation, without negatively affecting the university he/she represents, he/she should be able to do so. Just because a student non-athlete doesn't have these opportunities doesn't mean that the student athlete should be prevented from pursuing them.
Do you really mean this argument, with all the supporting statements for it in this thread by many different people, doesn't make sense to you?
Or do you mean you don't agree with it?
Your argument makes plenty of sense to me. I just think when you remove your argument from the vacuum within which you've structured it and take into account all the ways in which these athletes are compensated coupled with all the negative influences that will most certainly take advantage of these new forms of compensation, that your argument loses most of its weight.
Well, a little bit of both. The argument, as I understand it, goes something like this:
Just because a Student Athlete has more opportunities available to them then a regular student doesn't mean that they should be prevented from pursuing said opportunities.
First of all, I want to establish that I in no way, shape or form believe that a student athletes are taken advantage of or abused by their university; I do not believe they are entitled to addition compensation purely because of their on the field performance. They should not be given more compensation, I just believe that if they want more compensation, they should have the ability to work for it. Personally, I think we should get rid of bowl gifts and things of that nature, but give student athletes the ability to coach little league/camps/etc for pay, or appear in a Nike commercial for pay, etc.
I agree, the bolded statement is the major hurdle, but I don't think that it is something that cannot be conquered. If the NCAA is willing to do what is best for the student athlete (major question - I know), I think it is possible to find a solution where student athletes can be students, athletes, and pursue other career ventures during the off season. This would require the schools give more transparency to the NCAA, the NCAA to clarify/simplify their rules, then actually enforce them (strange concept, no?).
The job of the NCAA should be to protect student athletes from their university, not hinder their ability to advance their career.
You do know that bowl gifts are provided by the bowl game and not the school right? The school outfits them with some warmups, a shirt, a hat, and that stuff, but the Xbox, headphones, blu-ray players, and hairdryers are all provided by the bowl game and its sponsor. I understand your point that they should have the opportunity to work and earn their money, but plenty of regular students have opportunities to receive scholarships that put money in their pocket and not straight to their school tuition too. Opportunities are out there as long as you look for them.
Student athletes have a different life than regular students, but until you experience what they do, you can't say they don't have a tough life. When you consider they have to be college students and make practices, games, workouts, meetings, tutoring, and other team obligations as well, life becomes a little busier. Not to mention the fact that they have to constantly remember that their every move is being watched by someone somewhere and that their spot on the team, financial aid, and future all hinges on following a set of rules that limit what they can and cannot do while everyone who isn't an athlete doesn't deal with that.
I am aware. I think it's a little hypocritical for the NCAA to allow a bowl sponsor to give players a $400 Best Buy Gift Card, but then say it's a violation when a player accepts $300 in clothing.
I am aware, and I wholeheartedly agree. There are however plenty of opportunities that a regular student can take advantage of, but a student athlete cannot (camps, advertisements, etc).
You're absolutely right. I did not mean to suggest that Student Athletes have an 'easier' life than regular students, I just wanted to explain that I don't think Athletes are 'abused' or 'taken advantage of' or 'enslaved' by their university. When I get the chance I will update my original post to reflect this.
I think with regards to the bowl gift, the difference is that the TEAM is given gifts whereas it is a violation for an INDIVIDUAL to receive gifts. I'm not 100% certain on that, but that is my assumption on why it's okay. I also think that it's different when it is given from an unbiased 3rd party with no vested interest in the player, the school, or the player's performance as opposed to a booster. Just one of those roundabout NCAA bylaws that make little sense.
Just a quick response as I have to focus on work.
But you've got the counter argument in regards to what opportunities are available to different members of the student body substantially wrong.
The counter-argument has nothing to do with whether non-athletes have less lucrative opportunities available to them.
The counter argument is that the non-athlete student body already subsidize student-athletes via athletic fees built into their tuition. Adding any type of pay structure (as this court order essentially does) would most likely add to those fees. So what is the ethical argument for increasing the costs of regular students?
And I'll just add that your faith in the NCAA's ability to police new regulations concerning new avenues of compensation for the tens of thousands of student athletes in this country looks a little optimistic to me.
I'm not advocating a 'Play-for-pay' scenario by any means - in fact, I'm very much against it. I think that athletes should be allowed to market themselves as sole proprietors, and be able to partake in any activity for pay that they like, as long as does not compete with or derail the goals of the University.
TL;DR No to salaries/stipends, yes to getting paid to coach, teach, appear in commercials, and other employment.
Very optimistic, but I believe it's doable.
I would agree that they should be able to make money not related to sports however the slippery slope is whether Wyatt Teller is really legitimately good at photography or are alumni buying his photos because he's a football player.
I understand the point you're making but I don't think the contract they sign is illegal or unethical. As Krak states athletes receive an enormous amount of money and value that normal students or even other scholarship students do not receive. So it's not as if they are restricted to no money at all, they are just restricted by a contract to limit external income to avoid the issue with Wyatt's photography as I mentioned above.
The moment you open that up is the moment there are hundred's of Nevin Shapiro's everywhere which I personally see as the biggest reason why to restrict income.
This is absolutely the major conflict, but I believe it the correct move is to try to fix this problem, not to prevent athletes from exploring other opportunities.
If what you really want is a true free market then players will be owing money to schools not the other way around. If you get in to the accounting of every dollar value given to student athletes opposed to the dollar value a single student athlete gives to the university the athlete loses every time. It's not simply a pay if you think I am valuable scenario. That's not free market at all.
Free market is more like:
School invests 400 million (example) in overall football related value born to player, inclusive of tuition, coaching, training, medical care, room and board, equipment, facilities, marketing, national exposure (for the big schools), tutoring, and on and on and on. Spread this across a finite number of players on the team of which only few are real stars that add to brand recognition, equals millions invested to every individual player.
Player pays nothing to school. Only receives. Vast majority do not turn into stars and therefore do not impact school's brand recognition. Of those that do impact brand recognition it is a metric of how much merchandise was sold from one year to next that has their image, name, likeness, etc. Which is maybe a few hundred thousand a year for the biggest star on the biggest team.
So then it's simple free market math: Millions > Thousands
first, not all scholarships are equal.. a scholarship to Duke for example, is worth a lot more than a scholarship to WVU or ECU - on top of that a back-up currently gets the same scholarship that a starting QB does, when obviously a starting QB is "worth" a lot more to the football team... so yes, the scholarship athletes receive compensation, but surely there is a better way to divide it up that this "one size fits all" system, and who better to know the value of each particular athlete than the school/coach he is playing for, surely it's not the NCAA
I couldn't agree any more. I have been saying this for the longest time.
Worth a read from Forbes , players are already highly compensated, the vast majority way over the monetary value they bring to the University.
Also outlines many of the complex issues that arise once you go down the road of compensating student athletes even more.
I see nothing wrong with a grown making getting paid to endorse a product, regardless of his schooling situation.
I'll give you a problem. The biggest schools with the biggest market share will attract every 5 star kid across the nation. Why? because players gots to get paid to play now and the bigger the school the more money you make. So no longer are ties to a university because of tradition and passion relevant in recruiting. It's all metrics now. I am X good so I can get into A,B, C and D programs that pay Y amount.
So what you will see are kids matriculating down the market for the highest payment they can get. So when a kid says "I have committed to Virginia Tech" What he really is saying "I couldn't get in to every university that pays more than Virginia Tech, so that's why I am here."
College football ruined.
exactly. ..aaaand we'll continually see the same schools winning. over and over.
Like how the same four SEC schools won the BCS all those years in a row?
This times a million
I don't disagree with what you're saying, but:
Isn't this pretty much what happens currently?
Uh, no.
How do you see it differently?
Uh, yes. This is why 5 star kids from Hampton Roads go play for Nick Saban, rather than their Hometown Hokies.
The only difference is the currency they are dealing with is national exposure, rather than US Dollars.
Very much so. Looking at the point above about monetizing the professional services afforded at no charge to these athletes supports that point. Why choose Bama over MTSU? The value of those free coaching, training and marketing services is better. Kids don't describe recruitments that way, but that is exactly what it is. Not even considering the $100 handshakes, the value for your commitment at Bama is just greater than MTSU.
In a sense, yes. The best kids have always gravitated to the best programs in the country. In that way you could say it's the same. The difference here would be that now that money is being paid the attraction of schools will be based on the money you can make playing for them. It used to be the program itself and it's storied past.
For example, I don't think Kevin Jones picked VT because he thought he couldn't get into any other school. He could have gotten in to every school. He fell in love with VT and he choose to go there. Now that you get paid that decision is more like this:
Beamer: We would really love to have you come play for us?
Recruit: Yeah, well... I see you are only 48th in payment rank and I'm really looking for top 30.
Beamer: But we have a history here, tradition of family values...
Recruit: I'll let you know once I hear back from everyone else first. Thanks
I had a feeling you would mention KJ and I understand the point you're trying to make. KJ is the definition of outlier for VT recruiting. Every couple years we've managed to sign a 5-star like Macho Harris or Tyrod but no one really with the hype KJ had coming in (being the #1 recruit in the nation). So even if recruiting becomes something based solely on bottom line dollars pay-for-play (which I don't think is happening), I see no reason that VT can't cobble together a package to entice the occasional outlier blue-chip to sign an LOI. Wouldn't this allow VT to continue signing the same recruiting class they've been signing for the past 20 years? And that doesn't even touch on the growth potential VT has as a STEM/research focused university in a tech based economy with an expanding alumni base in one of the fastest growing regions of the country. Also, if there were recruits wanting to become Hokies in the past because they "fell in love with the school," why would this suddenly cease to be a possibility simply because money is now openly part of the equation?
This!!!!!
It's really not about cobbling things together at all. It's income potential born from a school's market potential. Take jersey sales for example. VT can't really cobble anything more than what the jersey will sell for in free market conditions. And as much as we love our Hokies our fan base simply is not as large as the big boys, or even most of the medium boys. So VT is put at an immediate disadvantage. Take the exponential on video games, product endorsements, etc and kids going to teams with big fan bases and large television markets will make the most money. VT simply cannot compete.
For the reason I just mentioned. This isn't to say that a kid who is Hokie through and through wouldn't remain a lifelong VT fan, but when money is thrown into the equation can you blame a kid who is a diehard Hokie picking Notre Dame, Michigan, OSU, Bama, etc to play for? His earning potential there is going to be staggeringly more than he could ever hope to achieve at VT. and in a sport that is known to end careers early you take your money when you can get it.
Economics is about all incentives, not just money. Schools would still be able to recruit based on other things like:
Location: Close to home, right by the beach, in the heart of a vibrant city, small town feel, etc. based on what the recruit prefers
Quality of Coaching Staff: VT would likely still be a top school for DBs since we have a history of putting them into the NFL
Training Program and Staff: Stanford's S&C staff focus on preventing injuries, rather than just putting up big numbers, which could translate into a longer NFL career and more money over time
Other selling points might include: On site hospital treating a parent at time of recruitment, favorable ratio of male and female students, prominent professor in desired field of study, the ability to be best player on team rather than just another cog in machine/wanting to start a new dynasty at a school rather than just continuing an old one, and an infinite number of other reasons a player would prefer to go to one school over another.
If money were the only thing that mattered, I would probably be working a full time job in Texas or the Dakotas right now, instead of working two part time jobs, one of which I'm over qualified for (the other I'm vastly overqualified for), because I love the area I live in, the church I attend, and being able to go watch my high school's football team play 10+ times a year.
understand your point. But if this were true we would have a team full of 5 star VA talent. Unfortunately the recruiting scene has already moved beyond this as kids want to play on teams with more national coverage with chance to win championships, and when money gets involved it will only get worse.
Just wait until Nike starts producing commercials featuring Oregon players. They may prove to be unstoppable on the recruiting trail then. Hell, Maryland might even become respectable.
You make excellent points, although I think perhaps you place too much weight on your own perspective. Your place in life is not the same as a college-age young man whose priorities in life are not nearly as complex or refined, generally speaking.
The problem is that for this to work, for allowing athletes to generate their own income via marketing themselves, it would require (1) ethical actors, and a (2) viable means of policing.
As for (1), I don't think the argument can be made that making paying athletes in this manner legal will suddenly cause the shadow arms race in the recruiting world go away. Instead, it will most likely accelerate as unethical bag men (as opposed to TKP's own petebuddywilson), would be given a whole new bag of very easy tricks to ply their trade.
And (2), the NCAA can't police its current policies with anything approaching competency or even-handedness. What makes you think they could do any better with the addition of this or any other broad additional compensation to athletes?
You don't think there will be rules? Salary caps? Maxes on players?
What if the max on the individual was $50K/year, just about any school in the power 5 conferences could afford that. Who knows what the max will be, but considering it would take a majority of the schools to agree to it (well, when the elite-5 conference is formed, we'll see how things shake out, but I digress), the richest schools will be in the minority.
sure, I can see that. And I hope there is. What I am saying can be doomsday but I think that everyone going on about free market is meaning that players all have different value and not a set value and in that line of thinking things tend to get out of hand really quickly.
The larger point is to say that really if there is salary caps and those star players than demonstrate they earn more than the salary cap can just do this lawsuit all over again.
Nobody has much of a problem with that as a basic premise. But there are big problems in the execution.
First, there's the problem with parity among university resources, size and market. A player at USC has a much larger "home" market to pitch to, and his paid endorsements would be far higher paying than that kid in Manhattan, KS. A kid going to Michigan has a huge alumni base to marketed to as well, while Miami has at best 20% the alums that Michigan does. And that leads to the other big problem with alumni/fans...
Kids are going to get paid illegitimately for endorsements. Boosters & bag men are going to pay kids $50,000 for a 30 second radio commercial, not because it makes economic sense for their car detailing business but because they want top prospects attending their school. Bag men are already a problem, but if you give people a 'legal' way to be bag men you can expect that problem to grow exponentially.
well said +1
To my knowledge nothing about the case removes the Title IX implications of playing players. In addition, nothing now removes the potential tax implications of paying players.
If I was representing the universities I would do two things:
simply have kids sign waivers, giving up their rights to income as part of signing with a school.
or
seek compensation on the investment you are making. The university is spending tens of millions of dollars to train, coach, educate, etc these athletes. And they risk their financial livelihood by playing them on Saturdays. If a player sucks it up and you have a bad year it could have serious financial impacts next year or down the road (ticket sales, merchandising, etc) All the while you are giving now paid players free marketing, training, coaching, education, etc. They now are taking a slice of your pie irregardless of its impact on your bottom line. So I would seek a compensation on their next level contracts. If they move to NFL then I want minimum 40% of their income. As a university I am now much like a modelling agency or a venture capitalist. I am seeding the financial success of a risky investment, and I want my returns when they go big time.
If it was my decision, I would definitely be going after money like that. Players want to be paid professionals then welcome to the real world of business.
The waivers thing is pretty much what we have now in the LOI. The judge ruled that the NCAA or all of its member schools cannot conspire as an organization (and one that monopolizes every school and student athlete in the county) to fix the payment at a specific amount. Right now, they fix the the payment at 0$ and the judge appears to buy the idea that removing this fixed price will promote competition in the marketplace. Of course, the richest schools win in this case. But I didn't see anything saying they could do it for football players only. If they did, I'm sure it would end up as a Title IX issue.
I don't buy the players paying the school after they're drafted. If there is any payment involved, call it a "transfer fee" and have the drafting organization pay the school for transferring the rights for the player to play with their organization instead of with the school. So for example, the Colts drafted Luck, so they would pay Stanford a commission for recruiting and developing Luck. Same way R Madrid can pay Man U for C Ronaldo to transfer the exclusive rights to his services to Madrid.
But let's not forget, scholarships are given out to regular students, too. If you have a stud chemistry student, they can get a scholarship, work for the university by means of conducting research, and then when they graduate they don't have to pay the school anything more.
Dude you're always on point! ...couldn't agree more.
Well yeah, academic scholarships exist too, but they aren't given out at nearly the same rate or have the same benefits as say a football scholarship.
Ain't that the truth.
I knew you would bring up Soccer. haha... but no, this just wouldn't work here. The school puts in way too much investment on very young athletes, and provides them incredibly valuable exposure from a marketing perspective, all on their dime to simply get a transfer payment from an NFL/NBA/etc organization. And really at the heart of this case is the "imbalance" of college sports in regards to universities and student athletes. The O'bannon case opened the pandora's box with a very short sighted understanding of the ramifications, as with all pandora scenarios. Now that creating the "balance" is the norm then universities should seek maximum return on their investment, and transfer fees simply do not do that. It's just business.
If it really went down this road then there will be account sheets on every player calculating to the penny just how much was spent and value given to him. Just how expensive is 2+ hours of nationally televised exposure? a shitload. Only way to make your money back is to get dividends off your investment.
You knew I would :)
I still look at that model as probably the most stable in the world. The organizations have related developmental academies they support financially for scouting and training. This doesn't appear to be all that different from the minor league baseball system we have here. In both cases, the players are brought into the youth/minor league part of the organization to see if they can be developed to make it to the big stage. This works well for both sports.
But here, basketball and football don't have that. And they're big sports markets. I wonder whether we'll see the NFL and NBA improve their scouting and development structures to give the option for high school athletes to move into a paid role without needing to go to college. I could see the NBA moving to this model more easily than I could see the NFL, because there are already a bunch of organizations around the globe who do this for basketball.
But I don't think the NFL will be doing this. I think they're happy with the way it is, letting the college game pay to train the next generation of players. In baseball and soccer, training and development are part of what's called, "the cost of doing business". I don't think the NFL will like to take on this additional cost.
So what we'll end up with, I think, and I hope, is more of the academies model, but unlike baseball and soccer, the academies (colleges) will be organizationally separate from the pros. So instead of bringing in the next Jadeveon Clowney to your academy and, as a result, developing him to play for your team (and only your team), there will be a transition from the college to an unrelated professional team. I think this level of separation will be necessary, and offers the freedom of the player to attend a college of their choice without it determining where he'll have to play his pro ball.
I still think collecting the transfer fee from the NFL team that drafts a guy to the college that developed him still makes sense.
Oh, I completely agree with you on transfer fees being the simplest method of transacting payments that supplement lost income, but I just don't think NFL teams will pony up any money for it, let alone go dollar for dollar on lost revenue of the university. NFL teams are in no way obligated to do this and the NCAA has no power to demand they pay. So that leaves the university in a bind where the only way they can recoup lost income is on the investments they are making, which in this instance is also the source of lost income. In this way I see it as the only method of restitution and really what the universities should be doing if this all goes tits up and pure business models are what rule the day.
In Chapter 6 of Free to Choose, Milton and Rose Friedman suggest pretty much the same setup as an option for paying for college for any student. People, businesses, etc. being able to invest in a students education and receive a percentage of their income above a certain amount after they graduate.
I wonder if this is something that will continue to be appealed for years to come until it comes to the Supreme Court and if this is even something they would hear? Like many have said, this is going to change the face of college sports. Really want to believe that the game will remain the same, but after the first year that Alabama or Texas or one of the other big schools buy a championship and my interest will disappear. Will always pull for Tech like I do the Sox because I do have a fond place for the school but it won't matter to me like it does now.
I found this interesting, and a great point, made by Andy Staples of SI:
I can't even fathom where this could possibly go moving forward.
I think it's fair for student athletes to pursue additional compensation for products bearing their likeness. If they are 'sponsored' by a video game why shouldn't they get a small cut? If they can sell their autograph (looking at you JFootball) I think they have the right to make money off their own name. If the school sells $20000 in Michael Brewer Jerseys I don't think it would be outrageous for him to want some of that money.
That being said, I seriously disagree with the idea of paying players just to play football. They already have more perks than I ever had in college AAAND, barring injury, a good portion of these athletes are actively gaining experience in a field that has a very high earning potential. A vast majority of college students will never have the same opportunities as these football players, and yet, they PAY for the education that will ultimately bring the bread home for them. What about all of the Masters and PhD students who do research and bring in money for their respective programs. The academic institution does benefit financially from the work of students but you don't see every single grad student getting free room and board as a result. Why should football players be treated differently than the rest of the students?
Why should football players be treated differently than the rest of the students? Simply put, they generate revenue for the school and allow the rest of the athletic department to sustain itself. Plus they are not like any other student and they came to school at least partially for football, which is obvious given their uber-strict schedules based all around it. Doesn't matter if it's right or not...money talks. That being said, they are given an amazing opportunity to succeed with so many tools... as long as they are able to live a comfortable lifestyle (this gets tricky, I know) where they have an ample amount of food *coughcoughShabazzNapiercough*, I believe it's more than fair. Buttttt, it seems like I am beating a dead horse and we are essentially saying the same things in different ways.
The crossroads to collegiate athletics was just passed, and it was a bad, bad, bad move big picture for Virginia Tech. To put it simply, we do not have the budget to seriously compete in a world of pay for play while maintaining a healthy athletic department flush with non-rev sports. The judge mandated that all schools can start compensating players, and the NCAA cannot limit that amount to an amount less than $5k per athlete per year. Thats the price floor from now on. She also went a second step and issued a permanent injunction that legally prohibits schools from not paying this throughout the appeals process.
Now, she did allow the NCAA to set a cap at something higher than $5k per player per year, and with the autonomy proposal just passed, it will allow each conference to set their own limit. If you're thinking the ACC can compete with the salary cap of the SEC or B1G you're fooling yourself. And whatever the limit may be in the ACC, do you really think we're going to have the deep enough pockets to pay what schools like UNC, FSU, UofL, Duke, NCSU, Clemson, and even UVa can pay with their deep, deep endowments and cushy marketing deals? If we hope to compete at whatever level the ACC sets, simply put, we're going to drop some, if not most, of our non-rev sports. Football alone, this is going to cost each university bare minimum $465k per year, with that level likely surpassing the $1m per year in conferences like the SEC, who can afford it with their TV deals.
What really kills me about this is that the players are already compensated very freakin well as it is. They get free on the job training in a field with a ludicrous salary structure, free room and board, free tuition, free books, free food, free apparel, free medical coverage, and a stipend. They graduate debt free fully trained for the field in which they hope to make their money with free backup training in a completely separate field in case that one falls through. In the day and age where Student Debt is at an all-time high, not a single scholarship athlete has to pay a dime back to the university after college. And now, on top of being debt-free, they're now going to receive, at minimum, a $20k check at the end of college for their services.
Its time to cut the bullshit. Eliminate college athletics, and decouple football and basketball from the university system. If these guys want to get paid, fine, set up a developmental semi-pro league run by the NFL/NBA and be done with it. If you want to utilize existing collegiate stadiums for it, have at it. Right now, I'm absolutely ill thinking about where the future of collegiate sports is heading. The world of recruiting was sleazy as hell before, and now that you're actually making it illegal to prevent bag men from dishing out millions to kids in high school to come play for a school, its nauseating to see just how bad it will become.
My prediction, once this goes into effect and the true impact of paying kids to play at the collegiate level kicks in, the popularity of collegiate athletics will plummet. The same teams will win over and over and over again. It'll be like baseball, just without any semblance of trying to help the weaker teams get better (like they do with the luxury tax and the draft). It'll be a true free-for-all, the biggest pockets win. And unfortunately, for Virginia Tech, our pockets can't even compete in our own state, let alone conference, let alone nationally.
Post removed. Leave the downlegs.
Nice contribution... If you think that post was so off the mark, explain yourself instead of just throwing an insult out there.
Didn't mean it to be an insult and am happy to remove it if folks think it's inappropriate. I just think a "sky is falling" assessment of Hokie Football is overkill. I don't know what will happen as a result of this ruling, but at this point I don't think there's a reason to close up shop and rent out Lane Stadium.
So respond with an argument for why you think all of the bad consequences so many other people bring up are not going to happen.
I have yet to see that addressed in this thread. All the people in favor of this ruling are completely ignoring all the potential bad things stemming from it.
As my grandad was fond of saying, hope in one hand, and shit in the other, and see which one fills up first.
You can hope that nothing bad happens all you want, but the reality is, this ruling just took a huge steaming dump over the reality of college athletics.
I'm not saying that I agree with the ruling. In fact I disagree, intuitively at least, with the concept of pay-for-play in collegiate athletics.
But most universities I think are run by intelligent folks who aren't going to just sit back and watch while college football becomes the NBA. The argument that Alum is making, that the long term effects of unrestricted pay-for-play will be devastating to CFB, is precisely why it won't play out that way. There are too many intelligent folks with an interest in collegiate athletics to allow that to happen. My only point is that we should wait to see what happens before rushing off a cliff about it.
At some point, no matter how smart you are, you meet the hard wall of simple mathematics.
Edit:
Every single student-athlete now must get 5k/yr if the institution wants to compete with the big boys for recruits.
/endEdit
I don't care how fancy your accounting department is. The annual total outlay for your athletics budget just went up by a huge margin. I am all-in on Whit Babcock, but we just added coaches and positions that cut into our margin as well.
VT has somewhat famously operated in the black, annually one of 20 or so institutions that do so on a consistent basis. That ability has just been significantly compromised.
At some point, someone else picks up the slack. Let me give you a hint as to where the first attempts to pick up that slack are directed:
Tickets & athletic fees.
So the die-hard fan gets soaked. Ok, if they are willing to pay it, fair enough.
But what about the non-student athlete?
Whats that argument for non-scholarship, non-athletes being forced to pay more money to get their degrees so that other students, many with a free-ride already, may get paid simply for suiting up?
"Every single student-athlete now must get 5k/yr."
Don't wait to keep beating a dead horse, but this is not true.
thanks...edited to correct.
And here's another thing... where do the payments stop? If you can start bidding for players in college, what about high school? Those kids are bringing in money to their high school athletic departments, they deserve a cut. What about rec leagues? Those kids are bringing in money to their leagues, they deserve a cut as well.
I am by no means saying it will happen, but the exact same argument that is being made to allow collegiate athletes to get paid can be used to get any kid on a t-ball team some financial kickbacks as well.
This is where it gets interesting.
I remember reading a story during the O'Bannon case that said Ed O'Bannon asserted on the stand that he believed little leaguers should be compensated for the use of their name/image/likeness. He ended up backtracking on his statement once he had a little time to think about it, but there is a case to be made for his point.
Obviously, it all comes down to the magnitude of the money at stake. A group of youth football parents aren't likely to hire lawyers and go through a long process in order to get "Little Timmy" the $20 he deserves for his league using his picture on their advertisements they put in the highway median strip. But when there's millions of dollars at stake as there are in big-time college sports, the picture changes.
I agree, not a lot if people know what's going on right now. What's everyone's optimal situation? Probably a 64 team set of super conferences. Right now, there are 64 big5 teams and ND. So I think we are pretty close to that goal, with the Autonomy Clause, the big 5 can create their own rules and roughly balance it out. I think there is a good chance college football improves by going to only Big5 games and having a much bigger playoff to bring in more money.
As you said, there are a lot of smart people who know where their bread is buttered. We are in the club, I anticipate VT will be fine.
Its not 'sky is falling' to say we cannot compete with the deep pockets of our peers.
TKP:The College Football Arms Race: Examining Athletic Department Revenues
The numbers right there speak for themselves. Our athletic revenue PALES in comparison to our peers, and this gap isn't going away, because those schools are propped up by enormous endowments that keeps money flowing into their athletic departments year after year after year with pure interest payouts. Its absolutely not chicken little to look at these numbers, understand exactly what it is that the judge just ruled yesterday and to see into the future of what this means for Virginia Tech. Right now, our athletic revenues are between 1/2 and 1/3 that of the collegiate fat cats. The majority of schools in the Top 20 are made up of SEC and B1G participants. The ACC's highest begins where their grouping drops off. If you don't think they're going to set a higher bar for annual pay that their members schools can give each athlete, I don't know what else to tell you. And then to even what we would be paying within the ACC, right now, exactly half of the conference has a budget greater than ours, who could afford to pay athletes at a level higher than we can. If you don't think the cap will be placed at a level where, at the very least, UNC can afford to give the max, (but in reality, it'll be set to what FSU can afford to pay its football players) then once again, I don't know what to tell you. In a world like this, we will simply financially not be able to keep up without slashing costs elsewhere, and those slashes are going to be hit hardest in our non-rev sports (especially considering this ruling was about ALL athletes getting that payout, and not just football/basketball players).
Great point - to all non-Hokie club members: join today and contribute annually!! This is exactly where this money comes from.
Assuming we had the same revenue generation as Texas, would you still feel the same way about the ruling?
You've been making some decent points up-thread, but this is uncalled for Yak.
ETA: I'll change my down-leg when you change that post.
"The judge mandated that all schools MUST start compensating players at a level of no less than $5k per player per year."
This is not true. Schools can choose to pay their players $10 each if they want to, as long as they don't illegally conspire with each other to keep prices down. This ruling made it illegal for the NCAA to continue to prohibit schools to pay their players for the use of their name/image/likeness, but in no way mandated each school to pay players $5,000 annually. The $5,000 dollar cap that the judge set is the point at which the NCAA can say to schools "you can't pay your players anymore than that".
While that $5,000 per player per year may sound like a price cap, the result for those who wish to compete for talent out of high school, and hope to keep their programs relevant will cause this to be the price floor. Sure, you can voluntarily go under it, and pay a kid $2,000 per year, but what kid would even consider you when he/she is getting 15 other offers at $5k per year, or more? From now on, the teams that will be winning titles and the teams that will be attracting the best players will be the teams spending the closest to the cap that their conference sets. We already see this in baseball, basketball, hockey, and international soccer (everyone spends to the cap in the NFL, and the MLS has league-controlled salaries) and its inevitable that it'll happen in college sports.
The thing is, the issue will be compounded in college athletics, because of how quickly rosters turn over. Whereas in baseball, you have teams like Philly and the Cubs straddled with horrible contracts they are unable to get out of, despite paying enormous team salaries, in college, these kids will be gone in 2-4 years, allowing a very quick opportunity to amend for a mistake. This quick turnover will ensure the teams who can pay the most stay at the top of the sport without long-term dropoffs, and once again, if you can't afford to pay, you're aren't going to seriously compete.
I agree that schools that want to be competitive on the national stage will do everything in their power to pay the maximum $5,000 annually, but I just wanted to point out that your original post was incorrect in saying that every school is now mandated to pay at least $5,000 per player per year.
I agree with most of your points and it is tough to argue that this isn't bad news for Virginia Tech. Just wanted to make sure everyone understood exactly what the ruling meant.
Good catch. Went back and edited my comment to revise to show what you just said. Appreciate the help!
No problem, this was a very complex ruling and I just wanted everyone to be clear that schools aren't required to pay their players $5,000 annually.
Also, while this certainly wasn't a "win" for Virginia Tech, it could have been much worse. If the judge had failed to set a cap on the dollar amount and truly opened the market for player compensation for their name/image/likeness, the Alabama's of the world would be able to pay their players as much as they wished. Then, the sky would truly be falling.
Its not over yet. There's another suit coming, Kessler vs NCAA that has its sights set on doing just that... Eliminating any and all limitations for individual collegiate athletes to make money off his or her name. Once the NCAA loses that case (which is appearing to be inevitable at this point) the flood gates are completely open.
It's not even close to over yet. The Kessler case will be just as pivotal for the NCAA. Plus, this case is still open for appeal, and both sides could conceivably appeal the ruling from yesterday.
But all big 5 schools will pay $5k. They conferences are incentivized to use their autonomy powers to differentiate themselves from the Non5 and their brand is best if balanced. The conferences will just fund the $5k out of the TV money. That's only $5m a year for the entire conference.
This may be a dumb question and I may be simple minded but how how can the judge issue "a permanent injunction that legally prohibits schools from not paying this throughout the appeals process." I am very obviously not a lawyer or anything of the sort, but every case I have ever heard of that went to appeals the ruling was delayed. For instance, when almost all of the states legalized gay marriage, as soon as an appeal was made the marriages had to stop until the appeal was ruled on.
I could be wrong, but as I understand it is because this is a labor related issue.
I'm very well compensated for my job, but I still try like hell to get a raise/bonus every time I can. This isn't a valid argument, but yet always comes up when discussing pay for play/Olympic model for NCAA athletes. If someone has an opportunity to make more money and improve their standing in life, they absolutely should. It is not for you (or I, or Virginia Tech, or the NCAA) to decide that Player X's life is "good enough."
I know this has nothing to do with the players, but because of this ruling will we see the universities try to get more corporate sponsors like the nfl to help offset cost?
Are there any other sports where you can't go pro straight out if HS except football and basketball? I can't think if any. So those sports are playing in different rules. They are minor leagues.
If that's the case, then let kids go pro out if HS. If they don't choose to, they are foregoing their professionalism. If we need to pay them, then charge them for the services they are receiving.
If the NBA and NFL don't want HSers, then let them set up development leagues in college cities. We have the facilities and infrastructure. They pay us for facility use, we pay them for marketing and it washes out. They pay the players and coaches, we can offer reduced tuition (like employees get?) to those athletes who want to attend classes who can gain regular admittance. They can hire their own tutors.
We are providing a service to the NBA and NFL yet we aren't compensated for it.
+1 #TeamDevelopmentLeague
You can go pro Basketball right out of high school, its just not as common because the level of competition is better in college than lower level professional leagues. In an earlier thread there was mention of a highly regarded basketball recruit who decided to forgo college and play in Europe for a year. (not a huge basketball fan beyond high school, and too lazy to Google)
As I understand it, the only NFL rule is that you have to be 3 years removed from High School to be eligible. I'm less sure of this but I believe that there isn't a similar restriction on other professional leagues like Arena Football and the CFL. So a player could come out of high school as the number 1 recruit and decide that they would rather play professionally in a lower tiered league for 3 years, instead of playing in college. Currently there's more interest from talented prospects in playing for a college team, but the AFL or CFL could always try to pull a "Leather Heads" move and try to lure top players from college teams to play in their league. We all know that if a player like Jameis Winston had decided to forgo his R-So year and jump to the AFL for a year before moving on to the NFL, ESPN would hype it every bit as much as they covered Lebron's decision to move to Miami.
I'm trying to think thru the parallels and contrast with Music majors. Presumably, there are music scholarships. They are non revenue. They have professors who improve their performance. Their tuition pays for their training. Can they be paid to play while in college? Presumably.
But the difference is that football isn't a major like music is. Should it be? There are plenty if applicable fields that a football player should be trained in: nutrition, sports psychology, marketing, coaching, contracts, sports management.....all outside of the actual physical training we think of as their focus.
Would it help to make sports a major?
The parallels aren't that strong. There's no structure in place to determine an amateur musician versus a professional one, not like the governing bodies of athletics.
Would majoring in sports be the only way you could play that sport? How would one be evaluated, especially if they never see the field/court in the sport they play (looking at the Lance Goffs of the world)? Because in the classroom, there's a baseline of participation that every student is expected to meet that just can't be met in competition.
I'm curious as to your line of thinking here though. Let's keep this going.
Yeah, their are scholarships for every major. But you have to be the best of the best of the best in that major for your school to get it. In football you can have 85 scholarships. There's what, 120 players max on the team? That's at least 70% of the team on scholarship. Please find me a comparison where any academic major awards scholarships to 70+% of people in that major.
Will we keep 85 scholarships? Or get closer to the NFLs 57? If you can cut players every year, you could shed some dead weight. How long will players need to attend school before going pro?
85 is currently required by D1 regulations and I don't see that going anywhere any time soon.
The number of years before going pro is a rule set by NFL. NCAA has no power to change that.
IMH and not-so-learned O, this coupled with a move toward an elite 5 probably means programs such as ECU with ambitions of their own will be on the outside and always looking in. I remember well those days when VMI, William & Mary, Richmond, and even ECU were not automatic wins. We worked our way up. This portends college football just becoming NFL Junior. Of course, nothing has happened yet, but for me as a fan, it could be a big turn off.
Well, does this at least mean we can have EA Sports' NCAA series back? That was the only one I annually purchased.
With all due respect, the age of amateurism has been dead for decades. College football and men's bball are billion-dollar enterprises. And while I'm sure there will be unintended consequences, at least one good thing that should come out of this is that more of the money aspect of things will be out in the open, versus the way it is now, where "everyone knows" but no one can prove what is actually going on.
I guess the fundamental question is this: are the big programs now required or allowed to pay players?
Athletic departments are frugal places. They have fought paying players all along. If their mindset is that they are now required to pay players, all athletes, the the conferences can set limits, the schools can monetize the services provided to the players and this can become a moot point. You can book paying a player $100k a year if you want, then charge him for the coaching, marketing, room/board, nutritionist, tutor, etc until it adds up to $100k and call it a day.
If the big boys see this as now being allowed to pay athletes, then it becomes a major component to recruiting. This mindset certainly fits the Texas budget theory, but I wonder what paying a football player $40k per year means to the women's volleyball player?
This is so new that I don't have a good feel for how schools, and conferences, will see this.
That sounds mighty close to a scholarship...
this ruling is not a big deal and is not even a little surprising. you can't sell something someone else owns without compensation. the NCAA members could decide not to sell the likenesses, images etc. and the players would get zip. or they can decide its worth it and give the players a cut.
with roughly 100 football and basketball players, then in about 4 years, it could cost a university up to 2 million per year. if you are making less than that off of your sale of player likenesses and images, then the solution is simple. don't sell them...or figure out a payment of less than $5k where everybody makes a little.
it does reference (and thus encourage going to), "the full cost of attendance", which title IX will effectively require of all athletic scholarships. but the big guys are going there anyway. that's also going to cost a few million more per year.
Kessler is the ruling that could potentially deamateurize collegiate sports. i have felt strongly that OBannon would win...didn't really see how they could lose. the question there was how would they deal with the money. Kessler is not a slam dunk case. it could impact the entire economic model. it could change rules like transfer restrictions. or the court can say not for profits can make whatever rules they wish and impact nothing at all. is it the NCAAs fault that the NFL has no minor league?
That right there is my single biggest complaint right now. Everyone is casting the NCAA as the villain throughout this process, when in reality, its the fault of the NFL and NBA for barring these kids the opportunity of getting into a developmental league to make money off themselves. They've been using the NCAA as a training ground for decades with zero kickbacks, and now they're leaving the schools on the hook when the lawsuits come calling. If it wasn't for the NBA and NFL setting arbitrary age restrictions on their league, there wouldn't be an issue right now.
I really hope the end game on this is a joint lawsuit of the athletes and NCAA against the NFL and NBA for these age restrictions. It is not the NCAA's fault they're in this position, and now they're being forced to spend potentially 8 figures per school per year to pay these kids out of pocket while the pro leagues sit back and laugh all the way to the bank. They are the real villains throughout this process, not the NCAA, but they're getting a ridiculous free pass.
You lost me somewhere -- the NFL is the villain for NOT spending money to create a developmental league?
You could say they shouldn't bar 17 & 18 year olds from trying to play in the NFL, but you'd be ignoring a whole lot of conventional wisdom by damn near everyone that those kids are not physically ready to deal with that level of play, and it would just be dangerous to try to make it work.
But I just don't follow how someone is a villain simply because they choose not to spend their money in the way you'd like them to.
The way things are didn't happen out of some master NFL plan. Things organically brought us to the current state via the actions (or inaction) of the NFL, the NCAA, and the various Universities.
From what I recall (and I could be 100% incorrect on this) the NCAA actually tried to sue the NFL and NBA to remove their age restrictions, because the NCAA could see the writing on the wall and how bad it would be for them, and the courts sided with the professional leagues.
With that said, I still stand by what I said. The NFL and the NBA are using and abusing the NCAA as their training grounds with zero kickbacks, and are stiffing the colleges for the bill when the players come calling. The colleges are stuck with the full liability coverage for dealing with these kids, and then when the rare few do make it to the next level, they receive little to no financial return on their investment. The NFL and NBA are having their cake and eating it, too. They're getting kids that are fully trained for their sport at the peak of their physical years, and are spending absolutely no money whatsoever in getting them to that point.
Its time to cut the crap. If they want to treat the NCAA like the training ground it is, its time for them to foot the bill.
Well, I wouldn't say fully trained and cost-free, as the pro Teams do need to then invest in exorbitant salaries and the resources to bring these college players up to speed in the respective playbooks and any remedial training to be prepared for the pro-game.
But basically what you are describing, the NFL and the NBA are using the same formula that every industry who hires college grads uses.
This is business. You could argue that it should change, but I don't think it's terribly constructive to label one side of the equation as "bad" just because they don't want to spend any money that other people are willing to spend. That would be like complaining the Microsoft and Apple don't invest in every Comp-Sci major in the country who have aspirations of working for one of those companies.
The NFL created and sustain (through no small investment on their part) a lucrative career field that lots of young athletes will spend lots of time and effort to get into, and lots of colleges will spend lots of money on to attract the best of those young athletes to grow a paying fan base.
Yes and no.
Many of the big name companies that do tap into colleges for their talent pool do kick back a hefty amount of money per year to help cultivate these kids to get a better experience and training while at Tech. I know for a fact, at least when I was at Tech, there were big financial agreements between companies like Booz Allen, General Dynamics, etc with our engineering dept to enhance the engineering field to give these students a better experience with more in-depth and quality hands on training while they are at VT. In return, these companies practically get to hand-pick who they want when these students are set to graduate.
Now, this was just an example I remember from engineering, but I do know Architecture, Pamplin College of Business, and Agriculture have similar agreements in place with other large companies for their students as well.
The fact of the matter is, the NFL and NBA, while using colleges in the same way these companies do, do not kick back any funds to the university systems to help the schools out financially while reaping all the reward for the growth in school, and are noticeably absent when the bill is coming due. They have their cake and are eating it, too.
I would suggest trying to convince the NFL & NBA to look at ways to change.
I still maintain it isn't all that constructive an avenue if you tell them they are just bad people.
They run a business that is working wonderfully for them at the moment. Companies that do invest in college students aren't doing it for the good press. They are doing it for a financial benefit.
Sell the argument that it is in the financial benefit of the NBA and NFL to do this.
Isn't the current system a product of an agreement between the NCAA and NFL/NBA? I have no real idea, but I thought the whole three-year deal was because the NCAA didn't want the pro leagues taking all the best players out of their system. If the top talent goes right to the pros/D-league out of high school, the caliber of athlete (overall) in the NCAA system decreases, perhaps endangering the quality of, and interest in, the NCAA.
Times they are a changin.
Would you want to watch a "College" Football National Championship game knowing that all the participants are being paid like professional athletes?
The whole reason for the NCAA was that this is the way things used to be. There were no eligibility limits or limits to paying players. The NCAA's purpose was to try to level the field so that college sports were not corrupted by money. Current rules were meant to address everyone pushing the limits (boosters paying for no show jobs, money paid to parents,... its all been tried before).
If schools and boosters can be eliminated from the dealmaking and payments this could work for the athletes. If athletes are to be compensated for their popularity then they should license their own products and not piggyback off their college. Their money making needs to be independent of the school they attend. The problem is that some schools and some conference get greater exposure and so have greater potential for the athlete.
If an athlete is allowed to get a share of revenues generated by their image, how much does the school get for services, facilities, and support that allowed the athlete to generate revenues? The loss and impact on non-revenue sports from payments to student-athletes will mean... higher student fees and higher prices for merchandise. I can see some conflicts between schools and athletes over marketing rights and revenues. I'll bet we've been down this road already.
Did the judge ask for proof that athletes actually generated revenue and the amounts? What percentage of the revenue was due to the school's efforts and how much was due to the athlete?