NCAA and One and Done

[kshoe]

1 minute ago, Pistol said:

And I've also said this repeatedly: This wouldn't change the current power balance at all. Kentucky and Duke already get the top players. They already have lucrative futures lined up. Saying we can't allow college athletes to benefit from their own labor and image because it will give big-money programs an unfair advantage ignores the college sports landscape as it already exists.

But here's the other part of this equation. Once you let the one-and-done players go straight to the NBA, you eliminate the tier that would command truly big dollars. Then the next level are the guys who might be able to leave early, but not necessarily one-and-done. They're not sure things. In your scenario, they're not the guys rich alums would want to throw money at to such a significant degree - the marginal value over the next player isn't nearly as significant. So things come back to earth quite a bit.

I don't buy that. If the top 50 players all go pro or simply disappear from the college landscape all the money will flow to the 51st best player and he'll get the local Lexington car dealership endorsement for $1mm. On a local scale, SLU would tell Kim Tucci not to donate funds directly to the program, but instead pay Goodwin $100k to do a Past House commercial.

As for the competitive landscape, it may be the case that the Blue Bloods and Power 6 conferences get the best recruits, but at least the smaller schools have a chance with a dynamic coach, local ties, etc. I have to believe that chance gets thinner and thinner if the BCS programs have all this extra money to throw at recruits that gets disguised as commercial advertisements. 

[billikenfan05]

Just now, Pistol said:

 

@billikenfan05 - This is exactly the sticking point you brought up on the previous page, the fundamental disagreement about what is considered payment.

A scholarship doesn't put money in your pocket today. It doesn't help your family pay bills. It doesn't take your girlfriend to the movies. It doesn't put gas in the tank. It is not liquid.

Is it a form of payment? Sure, I guess saying "paid nothing" isn't telling the whole picture on my part. However, when the NCAA, schools, and coaches are splitting billions of dollars and the players only get a scholarship, that's hard to accept.

I totally get both sides of the coin. I understand that college basketball and college especially isn't for everyone. You should be able to go to the NBA out of high school, you can go play in the G-League or Europe if you have the skills, but if you don't have the skills to play professionally getting an education and all the perks that come with college athletics is a pretty damn good deal. In my mind I think the bigger problem here is the lack of options for football players.

Again I don't know about likeness rights, it sounds fine to me but I haven't really done enough research to understand it.

[billiken_roy]

34 minutes ago, billikenfan05 said:

I'm by far one of the worst on this board at backing up my opinions with sound arguments(Mostly due to laziness) but two things I've wondered about are Title IX(How would this go over with women's basketball) and the non-rev sports. Those would be my questions.

I'm completely down with likeness rights, mostly because I would love to see 2k be able to revive College Hoops 2k and EA revive NCAA Football and likeness payments would be a great way to do it.

great point.   got to pay everyone the same.   otherwise you can count on lawsuits.   havent even talked about benefits that other university "employees" receive.   gotta offer them as well?   you guys are opening quite a can of worms.   i am betting the ncaa wont try to saddle this horse ever.  

[Pistol]

1 minute ago, kshoe said:

I don't buy that. If the top 50 players all go pro or simply disappear from the college landscape all the money will flow to the 51st best player and he'll get the local Lexington car dealership endorsement for $1mm. On a local scale, SLU would tell Kim Tucci not to donate funds directly to the program, but instead pay Goodwin $100k to do a Past House commercial.

As for the competitive landscape, it may be the case that the Blue Bloods and Power 6 conferences get the best recruits, but at least the smaller schools have a chance with a dynamic coach, local ties, etc. I have to believe that chance gets thinner and thinner if the BCS programs have all this extra money to throw at recruits that gets disguised as commercial advertisements. 

There are only 13 scholarships at any school at any time. There are only so many prospects who are "shoe contract" level players. Someone like Zion Williamson - who, by the way, is not an entirely reasonable example because he's so much more valuable than the best college player typically is - can command the highest level of outside money to go to a particular school because he's worth that much. You really think the 51st kid is going to command the same money? Let's break it down with the 2019 class:

14 players currently project as one-and-dones per NBADraft.net. That's the level of guys who could set off bidding wars among top programs. These don't line up cleanly with the Rivals rankings I linked, but let's see who's left when you pull those guys out of the top of the rankings: Matthew Hurt, Tyrese Maxey, Jeremiah Robinson-Earl, Josiah James, Isiah Mosley, Armando Bacot, Trendon Watford, Will Baker, Trayce Jackson-Davis, Oscar Tshiebwe, Wendell Moore, Tre Mann, Samuell Williamson, Patrick Williams, Keion Brooks, Onyeka Okongwu, C.J. Walker, Zeke Nnaji, Drew Timme. These are the 5-star players who don't currently project as one-and-dones. This is the top tier of potential college recruits after removing the 14 one-and-dones. Some of these guys could still declare, some of them could go pro elsewhere, some of them may end up being one-and-dones naturally and not because of a rule, and some of them will play two, three, or four years in college. All should be excellent, impactful college players and could play at any program in the country.

But do they really have the immediate marketability of someone guaranteed to play in the NBA next year? There's a pretty big drop-off between the kind of talent that can go to the NBA out of high school and the guys who can't. And then there's another big drop between those remaining 5-star kids and the 4-stars - a level that includes guys we're familiar with like E.J. Liddell. He's going to be a great college player, but is he worth an alum saying "Hey, I'll give you $1 million to be the spokesperson for my company"?

Furthermore, there's also the fact that these guys can leave at any time for any reason. Imagine being the SLU alum who shelled out some money for Carte'Are Gordon. You might think harder about how much money you'd offer another player. Is it worth it to throw a bunch of money at a kid who's only going to stay a year or two before turning pro, or would you rather have a four-year player with a connection to the community who can be the face of your brand for a longer time? These are questions that would have to be considered, and could be a moderating factor in terms of how much money we actually see guys getting paid on their image as college basketball players.

[3star_recruit]

1 hour ago, billikenfan05 said:

Here's where I think this issue will never be resolved. There are people who believe that the labor is being paid for with an education, housing, food, clothing, networking for after graduation etc and then there are those who believe that's not a form of payment.

If this is the argument, then every student, athlete or not, is getting "paid." But this is not how we see a kid on academic scholarship. He is "going to school for free", he is not "getting paid". We move the goalposts when it comes to athletes, though. And on top of this moving of the goalposts, they are the only students who are required to work a 30 hr a week revenue-producing job to maintain their scholarship.

Just because this double standard has been going on for decades doesn't mean it should continue.

[Pistol]

41 minutes ago, billikenfan05 said:

I'm by far one of the worst on this board at backing up my opinions with sound arguments(Mostly due to laziness) but two things I've wondered about are Title IX(How would this go over with women's basketball) and the non-rev sports. Those would be my questions.

I'm completely down with likeness rights, mostly because I would love to see 2k be able to revive College Hoops 2k and EA revive NCAA Football and likeness payments would be a great way to do it.

 

6 minutes ago, billiken_roy said:

great point.   got to pay everyone the same.   otherwise you can count on lawsuits.   havent even talked about benefits that other university "employees" receive.   gotta offer them as well?   you guys are opening quite a can of worms.   i am betting the ncaa wont try to saddle this horse ever.  

Yeah, and this is where the rubber hits the road. Once you make the determination that it's only fair to pay labor for the revenue they generate, then you figure out how to split it.

Revenue sport athletes might think they deserve more of the pie but right now no athlete is getting any of it, so if presented the option with getting some and every non-revenue sport getting the same, I don't think there will be a problem.

For the non-revenue sports where scholarships are split up, it could be a way to bridge the gap between the cost of tuition, room, and board, and what a player is getting from a partial scholarship. That's a huge boost for non-revenue sports at private schools. "We can't give you a full scholarship but if you receive the standard NCAA D-I compensation on top of a partial scholarship, how's that sound?"

[GBL_Bills]

36 minutes ago, kshoe said:

I don't buy that. If the top 50 players all go pro or simply disappear from the college landscape all the money will flow to the 51st best player and he'll get the local Lexington car dealership endorsement for $1mm. On a local scale, SLU would tell Kim Tucci not to donate funds directly to the program, but instead pay Goodwin $100k to do a Past House commercial.

I think this is ignoring the diminishing returns on the talent gap between players. The talent gap is going to be much larger between the #1 player and the #51 player than between the #51 player and the #101 player. Boosters would be much less willing to spend that much on the #51 player to appear in a car dealership commercial when they could get a relatively similar talent level for the #81 player. 

But overall, I think @Pistol‘s point is still the most salient. Kentucky and Duke already overwhelmingly get the best players available. Even if blue blood boosters start paying to get the best of the #51-#100, the overall parity with the rest of the sport would improve, just by letting the top go pro, in my opinion. 

[rgbilliken]

Agree with @billikenfan05that it seems like the biggest sticking point that some view scholarship, room and board, etc. as sufficient payment and some don't. 

I think part of it is that a college degree is worth a varying amount to various people. For example...To Jayson Tatum, a college degree is not worth much (money wise...though one could argue that an education has inherent value, regardless of the return on investment) and would  have negatively impacted him financially, if anything, had he stayed longer than a year in school. To someone like..idk, Welmer (i.e. someone who will never play professional sports of any kind), a college degree is worth a great deal. 

Actually agree with @billiken_roythat a lot of this would be solved by getting kids for whom a college education is of very little value out of college sports.

I still think it is unacceptable that the NCAA tournament brings in close to a billion dollars each year and players don't see financial compensation.

Someone on here brought up giving the players the full value of their scholarship and room and board, etc, in cash and then let them pay it back and have it taxed as income. I actually like that idea as a thought experiment: It would be interesting to give kids a choice of the value of their scholarship and all of that in cash, but have it taxed as income, and maybe you have to take out a loan vs. having everything paid for and you don't get paid. If you're a lottery pick you take the cash and pay back your loan next year when you get your signing bonus. If you're the majority of athletes who won't ever play pro, you take the scholarship. Obviously that would never happen but interesting to think about.

[brianstl]

9 minutes ago, Pistol said:

 

Yeah, and this is where the rubber hits the road. Once you make the determination that it's only fair to pay labor for the revenue they generate, then you figure out how to split it.

Revenue sport athletes might think they deserve more of the pie but right now no athlete is getting any of it, so if presented the option with getting some and every non-revenue sport getting the same, I don't think there will be a problem.

For the non-revenue sports where scholarships are split up, it could be a way to bridge the gap between the cost of tuition, room, and board, and what a player is getting from a partial scholarship. That's a huge boost for non-revenue sports at private schools. "We can't give you a full scholarship but if you receive the standard NCAA D-I compensation on top of a partial scholarship, how's that sound?"

You avoid the lawsuits by labeling football and men's college basketball coed making the spots available to the best athletes regardless of gender. You make them just like college chess teams. The best chess players available get scholarships at SLU without respect to their gender.

[Cowboy]

1 hour ago, Pistol said:

 

Is it a form of payment? Sure, I guess saying "paid nothing" isn't telling the whole picture on my part. However, when the NCAA, schools, and coaches are splitting billions of dollars and the players only get a scholarship, that's hard to accept.

-who that is getting paid now is getting paid less in order to pay the kids more than they are already getting? 

[Cowboy]

14 minutes ago, brianstl said:

You avoid the lawsuits by labeling football and men's college basketball coed making the spots available to the best athletes regardless of gender. You make them just like college chess teams. The best chess players available get scholarships at SLU without respect to their gender.

-interesting idea, can this last a long time before it goes to court?

[3star_recruit]

1 hour ago, Pistol said:

 

@billikenfan05 - This is exactly the sticking point you brought up on the previous page, the fundamental disagreement about what is considered payment.

A scholarship doesn't put money in your pocket today. It doesn't help your family pay bills. It doesn't take your girlfriend to the movies. It doesn't put gas in the tank. It is not liquid.

Is it a form of payment? Sure, I guess saying "paid nothing" isn't telling the whole picture on my part. However, when the NCAA, schools, and coaches are splitting billions of dollars and the players only get a scholarship, that's hard to accept.

The kid who gets a $30k academic scholarship and has to take on $10K in loans is being "paid" 30K according to the standard some of my fellow posters want to apply to athletes. 

[brianstl]

37 minutes ago, Cowboy said:

-interesting idea, can this last a long time before it goes to court?

For basketball and football you make the extra benefits provided compensation instead being part of the traditional scholarship.  Spots on those teams are open to any scholarship athlete that can make the team regardless of gender.  Anyone who makes those teams still gets added to the totals for male and female scholarship counts for Title IX.  I am not in favor of that, but that is where we are headed if you do more than let players benefit from their likeness while in school.  Just giving an increased stipend to players gets to expensive as you have to have a corresponding number of scholarships with the same stipend available to female athletes.

At FBS schools a $20,000 stipend is going to cost schools almost $4 million a year.  There only 30 total coaches in college athletics that make $4 million or more.  The money just isn't there for that kind of stipend for 196 (98 male, 98 female) athletes even at most P5 conference schools. You cut that in half by having it only apply to the basketball team and football team and it because much more achievable.  

[cheeseman]

2 hours ago, 3star_recruit said:

If this is the argument, then every student, athlete or not, is getting "paid." But this is not how we see a kid on academic scholarship. He is "going to school for free", he is not "getting paid". We move the goalposts when it comes to athletes, though. And on top of this moving of the goalposts, they are the only students who are required to work a 30 hr a week revenue-producing job to maintain their scholarship.

Just because this double standard has been going on for decades doesn't mean it should continue.

Apparently the IRS does not tax schollie money just as they do not tax medical benefits - not considered earned income technically.  Of course this could change.

[slufanskip]

I'm with KShoe on this. It doesn't matter how many players go pro or if the top player going to college is the 10th or 45th best player coming out of HS. The big money teams will fins a way to get an endorsement contract  to the top available players. Who's got more booster money? SLU or Mizzou?  SLU or Illinois? SLU or Kansas St? Players will go to the school that pays them the most. It doesn't matter if Duke can out bid us as they win that recruiting battle anyway. However we have won recruiting battles with schools that would easily be able to outbid us for players. (and don't fool yourself that's exactly what would happen) We would no longer win those battles. Period. Good thing is we should be able to outbid Illinois St.  The best players allow the school to win. Winning makes them money. They will pay to win. If not, why are there currently rules that prohibit schools from just handing the kid cash to come play for them.

Right now the richest schools don't automatically get the best players. The blue blood schools with history and a tradition of winning do. Gonzaga and Texas want the same kid. Right now either school has a fair and maybe equal shot. Allow Texas to funnel endorsement money to him, and Gonzaga is out. Some of you, I guess, believe this wouldn't happen. And you probably also believe professional athletes that are free agents go to the team they really wanted to play for not the team that paid them the most. 

As far as them owning their own likeness. If it wasn't for the school they go to there isn't 10 players a year who's likeness is worth a Big Mac. So good, we'll give all kids a Big Mac free for their likeness. 99% of them would be overpaid. 

[Cowboy]

5 minutes ago, slufanskip said:

I'm with KShoe on this. It doesn't matter how many players go pro or if the top player going to college is the 10th or 45th best player coming out of HS. The big money teams will fins a way to get an endorsement contract  to the top available players. Who's got more booster money? SLU or Mizzou?  SLU or Illinois? SLU or Kansas St? Players will go to the school that pays them the most. It doesn't matter if Duke can out bid us as they win that recruiting battle anyway. However we have won recruiting battles with schools that would easily be able to outbid us for players. (and don't fool yourself that's exactly what would happen) We would no longer win those battles. Period. Good thing is we should be able to outbid Illinois St.  The best players allow the school to win. Winning makes them money. They will pay to win. If not, why are there currently rules that prohibit schools from just handing the kid cash to come play for them.

Right now the richest schools don't automatically get the best players. The blue blood schools with history and a tradition of winning do. Gonzaga and Texas want the same kid. Right now either school has a fair and maybe equal shot. Allow Texas to funnel endorsement money to him, and Gonzaga is out. Some of you, I guess, believe this wouldn't happen. And you probably also believe professional athletes that are free agents go to the team they really wanted to play for not the team that paid them the most. 

As far as them owning their own likeness. If it wasn't for the school they go to there isn't 10 players a year who's likeness is worth a Big Mac. So good, we'll give all kids a Big Mac free for their likeness. 99% of them would be overpaid. 

-I agree with all you said but especially the last part, it seems trying to totally upend a system that may need tweaks for how many? 40 kids combined football and bball

[slufanskip]

2 hours ago, Pistol said:

There are only 13 scholarships at any school at any time. There are only so many prospects who are "shoe contract" level players. Someone like Zion Williamson - who, by the way, is not an entirely reasonable example because he's so much more valuable than the best college player typically is - can command the highest level of outside money to go to a particular school because he's worth that much. You really think the 51st kid is going to command the same money? Let's break it down with the 2019 class:

14 players currently project as one-and-dones per NBADraft.net. That's the level of guys who could set off bidding wars among top programs. These don't line up cleanly with the Rivals rankings I linked, but let's see who's left when you pull those guys out of the top of the rankings: Matthew Hurt, Tyrese Maxey, Jeremiah Robinson-Earl, Josiah James, Isiah Mosley, Armando Bacot, Trendon Watford, Will Baker, Trayce Jackson-Davis, Oscar Tshiebwe, Wendell Moore, Tre Mann, Samuell Williamson, Patrick Williams, Keion Brooks, Onyeka Okongwu, C.J. Walker, Zeke Nnaji, Drew Timme. These are the 5-star players who don't currently project as one-and-dones. This is the top tier of potential college recruits after removing the 14 one-and-dones. Some of these guys could still declare, some of them could go pro elsewhere, some of them may end up being one-and-dones naturally and not because of a rule, and some of them will play two, three, or four years in college. All should be excellent, impactful college players and could play at any program in the country.

But do they really have the immediate marketability of someone guaranteed to play in the NBA next year? There's a pretty big drop-off between the kind of talent that can go to the NBA out of high school and the guys who can't. And then there's another big drop between those remaining 5-star kids and the 4-stars - a level that includes guys we're familiar with like E.J. Liddell. He's going to be a great college player, but is he worth an alum saying "Hey, I'll give you $1 million to be the spokesperson for my company"?

Furthermore, there's also the fact that these guys can leave at any time for any reason. Imagine being the SLU alum who shelled out some money for Carte'Are Gordon. You might think harder about how much money you'd offer another player. Is it worth it to throw a bunch of money at a kid who's only going to stay a year or two before turning pro, or would you rather have a four-year player with a connection to the community who can be the face of your brand for a longer time? These are questions that would have to be considered, and could be a moderating factor in terms of how much money we actually see guys getting paid on their image as college basketball players.

You're thinking the player is marketable because of their talent. I believe they are marketable and will command a payoff because they're the best player available. Winning earns the school money and the school will pay to win. Let HS players go pro and the NCAA doesn't go away or the money that's earned isn't going to decrease. It's probably going to continue to go up and teams will pay to get their share.

[3star_recruit]

41 minutes ago, slufanskip said:

I'm with KShoe on this. It doesn't matter how many players go pro or if the top player going to college is the 10th or 45th best player coming out of HS. The big money teams will fins a way to get an endorsement contract  to the top available players. Who's got more booster money? SLU or Mizzou?  SLU or Illinois? SLU or Kansas St? Players will go to the school that pays them the most. It doesn't matter if Duke can out bid us as they win that recruiting battle anyway. However we have won recruiting battles with schools that would easily be able to outbid us for players. (and don't fool yourself that's exactly what would happen) We would no longer win those battles. Period. Good thing is we should be able to outbid Illinois St.  The best players allow the school to win. Winning makes them money. They will pay to win. If not, why are there currently rules that prohibit schools from just handing the kid cash to come play for them.

Right now the richest schools don't automatically get the best players. The blue blood schools with history and a tradition of winning do. Gonzaga and Texas want the same kid. Right now either school has a fair and maybe equal shot. Allow Texas to funnel endorsement money to him, and Gonzaga is out. Some of you, I guess, believe this wouldn't happen. And you probably also believe professional athletes that are free agents go to the team they really wanted to play for not the team that paid them the most. 

As far as them owning their own likeness. If it wasn't for the school they go to there isn't 10 players a year who's likeness is worth a Big Mac. So good, we'll give all kids a Big Mac free for their likeness. 99% of them would be overpaid. 

The gargantuan money exists in college athletics because it was a business built on professional talent that wasn't paid anything.  Corporate media paid big money to broadcast games featuring that professional talent because it attracts a ton of eyeballs.  The money that should have been shared with that professional talent went solely to athletic departments and coaches.  

Suppose those kids went directly to the pros.  Instead of the top-shelf talent being 18-19 year old future NBA all-stars, Duke and Kentucky's best players are instead Carsen Edwards and  Rui Hachimura.  You think the networks will continue to pay at the levels they are now to broadcast that talent?  Without those multi-billion dollar broadcast deals, the motivation to pay the 45th best high school player a million bucks to hawk cars goes away.

I agree with Roy that you need to get the rent-a-pros out of the game in order to pay the college kids a modest salary.  The NBA players union, by lowering the minimum age from 19 to 18, will soon remove that impediment.  

[kshoe]

19 minutes ago, 3star_recruit said:

The gargantuan money exists in college athletics because it was a business built on professional talent that wasn't paid anything.  Corporate media paid big money to broadcast games featuring that professional talent because it attracts a ton of eyeballs.  The money that should have been shared with that professional talent went solely to athletic departments and coaches.  

Suppose those kids went directly to the pros.  Instead of the top-shelf talent being 18-19 year old future NBA all-stars, Duke and Kentucky's best players are instead Carsen Edwards and  Rui Hachimura.  You think the networks will continue to pay at the levels they are now to broadcast that talent?  Without those multi-billion dollar broadcast deals, the motivation to pay the 45th best high school player a million bucks to hawk cars goes away.

I agree with Roy that you need to get the rent-a-pros out of the game in order to pay the college kids a modest salary.  The NBA players union, by lowering the minimum age from 19 to 18, will soon remove that impediment.  

Yes I do. At the margin sure it's nice to have uber stars to broadcast. But it's not nearly as big a deal as you make it out to be. Heck, the ESPN's of the world may find they get better ratings on college games if players stuck around for 4 years and became household names the way Tyler Hansborough, Jameer Nelson, JJ Reddick, etc. did in the past. 

[Taj79]

I like Pistols' naming of names.  Because after I read them, my reaction was who? Better yet .. who the fuok is that because without the basketball outlet, they are nobodies.  Maybe over time they succeed and are known locally to sell cars or Imo's but all are not.  What would Demarius Jacobs sell?  I'd love to see an NCAA accounting of the Madness money.  Just where does it go and what does it do?  Same with the College Football playoff bucks.  I think there is more than enough just in those two alone to pay scholarship athletes across all sports a few grand a month for "ancillary" items.  Count me in the camp that says room, board, tuition, etc., is a form of payment.  Barter systems still exist in the world.  The money situation is the very root of why the P5 schools want to schedule 20 games, keep the mid-majors at bay and so on. 

There are  what 352 D1 basketball schools.  That's about 4600 players if all scholarships are taken.  If you gave each scholarship player $2k a month for ancillary purposes, you are looking at $110 million per year.  In a billion dollar take that seems like doable chump change.  Football might be tougher but if the conference has a network -- Big Ten, SEC, ACC, etc. --- tap into that to make up any differences.  I think you will have a problem in non0-revenue producing sports but maybe they get disqualified because they make no revenue.  Could be an issue, right along with Title IX.

I think the kids should get more.  But they are nobodies without basketball.  They are nobodies in street clothes.  They can't make money off their image and likeness unless something else kicks them off and jump starts it.  Chicken or egg?

[cheeseman]

1 minute ago, Taj79 said:

I like Pistols' naming of names.  Because after I read them, my reaction was who? Better yet .. who the fuok is that because without the basketball outlet, they are nobodies.  Maybe over time they succeed and are known locally to sell cars or Imo's but all are not.  What would Demarius Jacobs sell?  I'd love to see an NCAA accounting of the Madness money.  Just where does it go and what does it do?  Same with the College Football playoff bucks.  I think there is more than enough just in those two alone to pay scholarship athletes across all sports a few grand a month for "ancillary" items.  Count me in the camp that says room, board, tuition, etc., is a form of payment.  Barter systems still exist in the world.  The money situation is the very root of why the P5 schools want to schedule 20 games, keep the mid-majors at bay and so on. 

There are  what 352 D1 basketball schools.  That's about 4600 players if all scholarships are taken.  If you gave each scholarship player $2k a month for ancillary purposes, you are looking at $110 million per year.  In a billion dollar take that seems like doable chump change.  Football might be tougher but if the conference has a network -- Big Ten, SEC, ACC, etc. --- tap into that to make up any differences.  I think you will have a problem in non0-revenue producing sports but maybe they get disqualified because they make no revenue.  Could be an issue, right along with Title IX.

I think the kids should get more.  But they are nobodies without basketball.  They are nobodies in street clothes.  They can't make money off their image and likeness unless something else kicks them off and jump starts it.  Chicken or egg?

Question - are you saying the NCAA should pay this stipend?  Just asking.

[cgeldmacher]

I personally have no issue with universities making a lot of money off of college athletes, because these universities are not private business.  The money is not going into the pockets of shareholders, its going into classrooms and research at the schools and is benefiting the regular kids that are actually going to college to get an education.

The top level one and done guys are using college ball as much as their college or the system is using them.  It's a stepping stone to the draft and big endorsement deals.  Why do you think they don't go play in Europe for a year?  The answer, agents are telling them they would be less marketable if they did.

The simple answer is the guys not interested in getting a college education should not be forced into college by the NBA or the NFL.  Also, guys who can't cut it academically should still have access to the NBA or the NFL.  These two pro leagues need to create minor league systems similar to hockey and baseball that would allow kids an alternative route to the pros.  Then change the rules to make sure that only kids who want to be in college go to school to play.  I would make a rule that once you play your first game in college, you can't be drafted into the NBA or NFL until after what would be your third college season.  That would clear out the pretenders really fast and funnel guys who only have pro ball dreams into the minor league systems.

Once this system is in place, the blue blood teams will still get top players.  Coach K , Calipari and Bill Self will still get top talent.  The game will still be fun to watch and just as exciting.  Most importantly, schools like SLU will still have a competitive chance.

[cheeseman]

Something that may be getting lost in this discussion is how do you put a value on the coaching/development part of the equation.  If the kid does not go to college to play ball then he has to pay for all this out of his own pocket or an agent's pocket.  So the kid gets the schollie and the room and board and some smaller stipend (I believe - correct me if I am wrong) - plus professional work out training, dietary counseling,  and skill tutoring for their sport all free.  Somehow all this must be accounted for because it is a cost to the school and benefit to the player.

[slufanskip]

5 minutes ago, cheeseman said:

Something that may be getting lost in this discussion is how do you put a value on the coaching/development part of the equation.  If the kid does not go to college to play ball then he has to pay for all this out of his own pocket or an agent's pocket.  So the kid gets the schollie and the room and board and some smaller stipend (I believe - correct me if I am wrong) - plus professional work out training, dietary counseling,  and skill tutoring for their sport all free.  Somehow all this must be accounted for because it is a cost to the school and benefit to the player.

I agree and mentioned that earlier. These coaches and school are who provide the skill and maturity development that allow the kids to become pros

[brianstl]

3 hours ago, slufanskip said:

I'm with KShoe on this. It doesn't matter how many players go pro or if the top player going to college is the 10th or 45th best player coming out of HS. The big money teams will fins a way to get an endorsement contract  to the top available players. Who's got more booster money? SLU or Mizzou?  SLU or Illinois? SLU or Kansas St? Players will go to the school that pays them the most. It doesn't matter if Duke can out bid us as they win that recruiting battle anyway. However we have won recruiting battles with schools that would easily be able to outbid us for players. (and don't fool yourself that's exactly what would happen) We would no longer win those battles. Period. Good thing is we should be able to outbid Illinois St.  The best players allow the school to win. Winning makes them money. They will pay to win. If not, why are there currently rules that prohibit schools from just handing the kid cash to come play for them.

Right now the richest schools don't automatically get the best players. The blue blood schools with history and a tradition of winning do. Gonzaga and Texas want the same kid. Right now either school has a fair and maybe equal shot. Allow Texas to funnel endorsement money to him, and Gonzaga is out. Some of you, I guess, believe this wouldn't happen. And you probably also believe professional athletes that are free agents go to the team they really wanted to play for not the team that paid them the most. 

As far as them owning their own likeness. If it wasn't for the school they go to there isn't 10 players a year who's likeness is worth a Big Mac. So good, we'll give all kids a Big Mac free for their likeness. 99% of them would be overpaid. 

How much money do you guys think boosters at schools like Mizzou and Illinois have to sign endorsement deals with 13 basketball players and 85 football players while still paying the basketball head coach, the football head coach and to donating for facilities every year?