Jump to content
Billikens.com Message Board
Sign in to follow this  
Schasz

NCAA and One and Done

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, rgbilliken said:

Why not? They’re providing a service and I think they should be paid...in money. I don’t see why this is controversial and don’t understand why people have so much emotional investment in them not being compensated financially. As to the exact amount? I guess that could be argued.   But generally I think that payment in money for doing a job is good. My criteria for pay would be that it should be equitable and not prohibitive from most serious basketball programs affording it. Anything would be better than the current situation where it’s all behind closed doors. Players are still getting paid...we just aren’t aware of it.  Let the players be paid outright and in the open instead of through some back channel with a bunch of people who aren’t the players themselves take their cuts. 

This is my problem: nobody has a plan on how to implement it. 

Look college athletics isn’t a career, it’s a path to a career. It also shouldn’t be required to enter the NBA. But it’s a way to get better and get to the NBA. If you don’t want to play college athletics and sign on for all the cool free that it offers then don’t play NCAA ball. There are a metric fuokton of teams in Europe where you can hone your game and get paid.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, rgbilliken said:

But why? Who cares that I wasn’t in undergrad? The stipend is a living wage to make it viable to attend graduate school instead of going into industry. It’s not a handout; it’s because the school would have to pay a ton of money to pay an actual worker to work in the lab for 60-80 hours a week, which is very common among grad students. I did it too. Similarly, the school and the NCAA are profiting off of unpaid labor on the part of athletes. Did I advocate a wild salary? No...last I checked the only thing my post mentions is a modest stipend in exchange for the service they provide, similar to what graduate students get.  

They have their living expenses paid for - yours were not.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, rgbilliken said:

Why not? They’re providing a service and I think they should be paid...in money. I don’t see why this is controversial and don’t understand why people have so much emotional investment in them not being compensated financially. As to the exact amount? I guess that could be argued.   But generally I think that payment in money for doing a job is good. My criteria for pay would be that it should be equitable and not prohibitive from most serious basketball programs affording it. Anything would be better than the current situation where it’s all behind closed doors. Players are still getting paid...we just aren’t aware of it.  Let the players be paid outright and in the open instead of through some back channel with a bunch of people who aren’t the players themselves take their cuts. 

Even if the NCAA paid the players a stipend, those schools that cheat would offer more under the table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, TheA_Bomb said:

What about just allowing athletes to make $ off their likeness and\or name?  Of course this benefits schools with big media markets but it seems fair. 

This seems like the absolute bare minimum to me. There's no reason whatsoever an NCAA athlete shouldn't be able to own his or her own name and likeness while in college. This would also be a massive boost in the non-revenue sports, where those endorsements within smaller niche markets could go a long way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, rgbilliken said:

Why not? They’re providing a service and I think they should be paid...in money. I don’t see why this is controversial and don’t understand why people have so much emotional investment in them not being compensated financially. As to the exact amount? I guess that could be argued.   But generally I think that payment in money for doing a job is good. My criteria for pay would be that it should be equitable and not prohibitive from most serious basketball programs affording it. Anything would be better than the current situation where it’s all behind closed doors. Players are still getting paid...we just aren’t aware of it.  Let the players be paid outright and in the open instead of through some back channel with a bunch of people who aren’t the players themselves take their cuts. 

 

9 hours ago, Quality Is Job 1 said:

Even if the NCAA paid the players a stipend, those schools that cheat would offer more under the table.

This is the other half of it, in addition to players owning their own name and image. There should be some amount on top of a scholarship. To watch the NCAA and schools and coaches carve up literal billions in basketball and football and occasionally other sports, and then athletes don't get any of that - it's wrong, and it wasn't going to last forever. I'm open to ideas about what the amount would be and how it gets spread out to other sports, but it can't be $0 anymore.

As for the schools that cheat and pay players under the table, or whether a payment system would favor the moneyed programs - then nothing really changes, does it? Those powerful and wealthy schools already get the best players, whether that's done under the table or not. The power balance doesn't really change.

And especially in basketball, if players are allowed to go pro straight from HS, there's going to be a limit on what players are worth to colleges. Basically, when you pull out the guys who are already known NBA players, it's a big drop-off in name recognition and therefore brand value for the school. There's no shortage of material written about Zion Williamson's value to Duke, but what if he and R.J. Barrett and Cam Reddish just went pro and never went to Duke? What's the guy in the next tier worth to them? I don't think it's a lot extra (if anything) on top of a base-level salary/stipend to guys like Alex O'Connell and Jack White and Marques Bolden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-kids are going to have more options when the NBA makes their change, no one is forcing them to attend college and play bball, if they want something else then do something else, the one and done impacts less than 40, and might be less than 20, kids per year versus the 1100 or so other incoming freshmen to play D1 hoops, they get their part of the deal and the schools get their part of the deal, an issue I have is the NCAA seems to be as corrupt as corrupt can be and having these folks run whatever deal is a joke 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pistol said:

This seems like the absolute bare minimum to me. There's no reason whatsoever an NCAA athlete shouldn't be able to own his or her own name and likeness while in college. This would also be a massive boost in the non-revenue sports, where those endorsements within smaller niche markets could go a long way.

Okay, so how would you propose this work?  Would Zion W, for example of one who is all over the newspapers, etc., get $1,000,000 (my number) for his value/likeness at Duke, while a Javon Bess might get $10,000 for his likeness being used to sell tickets at SLU? 

The tables would be more than tilted.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, HoosierPal said:

Okay, so how would you propose this work?  Would Zion W, for example of one who is all over the newspapers, etc., get $1,000,000 (my number) for his value/likeness at Duke, while a Javon Bess might get $10,000 for his likeness being used to sell tickets at SLU? 

The tables would be more than tilted.  

I think the better example would be that regular players would favor the big schools over the small because a better chance to get more endorsements. Zion is gonna get paid by companies wherever he goes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, HoosierPal said:

Okay, so how would you propose this work?  Would Zion W, for example of one who is all over the newspapers, etc., get $1,000,000 (my number) for his value/likeness at Duke, while a Javon Bess might get $10,000 for his likeness being used to sell tickets at SLU? 

The tables would be more than tilted.  

Why would there be dollar amounts associated with this? All I mean by "image and likeness" is that players should be able to work and market themselves as they are able to do so, and the NCAA shouldn't be able to stop players from being paid for work they do outside of their given sport(s)

If EA wants to use the actual names and images of college players in video games, everyone featured gets paid for that. If Nike wants to sign Zion in college, they work out a contract. If Imo's wants to feature SLU players in a commercial, they get paid for that. If a field hockey stick manufacturer wants to use the top field hockey player in an ad campaign, she can get paid for it. If Paramount wants to reboot the Shaft franchise with Fred Thatch, he's allowed to do it and get paid.

It works like anything else in a capitalist economy. You get paid for the work you do, and if you're a public figure and companies want to use you for marketing, they pay you for it. No one has to set amounts; the NCAA just allows players to exist as human beings in the world instead of controlling them. It's probably the easiest step in this whole question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pistol said:

And especially in basketball, if players are allowed to go pro straight from HS, there's going to be a limit on what players are worth to colleges. Basically, when you pull out the guys who are already known NBA players, it's a big drop-off in name recognition and therefore brand value for the school. There's no shortage of material written about Zion Williamson's value to Duke, but what if he and R.J. Barrett and Cam Reddish just went pro and never went to Duke? What's the guy in the next tier worth to them? I don't think it's a lot extra (if anything) on top of a base-level salary/stipend to guys like Alex O'Connell and Jack White and Marques Bolden.

This would be the best thing to happen to college basketball.  Way too much emphasis gets placed on marketing players that aren't going to be around by the time they get traction with the casual fans.  College football is so much more successful because the focus is much more on the programs and not the players. Making the game more and more like a pro sport isn't going to help the game or even most of the people who participate in it long-term. As more and more of the public views the game as a pro sport less and less people will watch it.  It will become viewed as a minor league and people don't invest money, time or emotions in minor league sports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not really sure what the solution is in terms of paying players or maintaining some level of amateurism.

I do think everyone always focuses on the players bringing in so much $ for the schools and not not getting "any" (aside from scholarships, room & board, stipends, free high $ apparel & gear, etc.).  That is certainly true.

However, there is another side to the coin and that is that the schools (and NCAA as an organizing body) have this built in marketing structure.  When you're watching college sports, you're essentially watching minor league competition.  Not many people care about minor league sports on their own.  NCAA sports generate a whole ton more money than other minor leagues because schools have a built in fan base with students and alumni.  Games are events because they're networking opportunities or de-facto class reunions.  

Coach K and a bunch of media talking heads are saying that NCAA is in trouble because they won't get really good players like Zion when the one and done rule is gone.  I just don't see it that way.  As difficult as it is to believe Duke will still be Duke without Zion.  They'll still have the Cameron Crazies and people will watch games despite the players on the floor not being the best in the world.  As long as the level of play and competition is strong enough to provide a level of spectacle to interest people college basketball and other sports will be just fine no matter who players are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't seem like it was all that long ago that kids went straight to the NBA from HS. I believe the NCAA will need a new plan in place for when players can opt to leave for the NBA, maybe Junior year. In any case college basketball will survive. I've never liked the one and done and I believe only KY and Duke have each won one NCAA basketball championship with one and done players. I'm certainly not shedding any tears for Duke after their loss yesterday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Schasz said:

It doesn't seem like it was all that long ago that kids went straight to the NBA from HS. I believe the NCAA will need a new plan in place for when players can opt to leave for the NBA, maybe Junior year. In any case college basketball will survive. I've never liked the one and done and I believe only KY and Duke have each won one NCAA basketball championship with one and done players. I'm certainly not shedding any tears for Duke after their loss yesterday.

They should be able to go straight from high school or come in and play however many years they want and leave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about non revenue sports? How many student athletes at SLU? x 25k each? Or are we just paying athletes in sports that make money? The truth is most student athletes by a wide margin don't have the option of going pro. Many of them wouldn't be in college if it wasn't for their athletic ability. What is the total cost of a basketball player at SLU if they paid it all. Tuition, room and board, food, laundry, the stipend they currently get, etc … 

Imo that should be enough. Look, if someone has a better option, let them take it. Is the NFL or the NBA wanting to pay for and train 10,000 athletes. In addition to the benefits already provided the athlete gets the value of the development and the coaching they receive in school. It's not free. It costs the school millions of dollars and aside from donations does SLU make money from it's basketball team? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Schasz said:

It doesn't seem like it was all that long ago that kids went straight to the NBA from HS. I believe the NCAA will need a new plan in place for when players can opt to leave for the NBA, maybe Junior year. In any case college basketball will survive. I've never liked the one and done and I believe only KY and Duke have each won one NCAA basketball championship with one and done players. I'm certainly not shedding any tears for Duke after their loss yesterday.

The rule changed with the 2006 NBA Draft. It appears that it will open up again for the 2022 Draft, but I don't think it's official yet.

6 minutes ago, billikenfan05 said:

They should be able to go straight from high school or come in and play however many years they want and leave.

^This. How many years of college - if any - should be the choice of the player.

1 minute ago, slufanskip said:

How about non revenue sports? How many student athletes at SLU? x 25k each? Or are we just paying athletes in sports that make money? The truth is most student athletes by a wide margin don't have the option of going pro. Many of them wouldn't be in college if it wasn't for their athletic ability. What is the total cost of a basketball player at SLU if they paid it all. Tuition, room and board, food, laundry, the stipend they currently get, etc … 

I don't think anyone involved in non-revenue sports is advocating for huge sums of money for those athletes. No one playing volleyball or field hockey or cross country has any delusions that they're going to be superstars. However, if you let players control their own images, the endorsements in non-revenue sports could be a big deal for college athletes.

And again, I'm open to ideas on how to spread out revenue from basketball and football and other sports that might be bringing in the most money, but a little something spread out across the board would also be a something to look at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Pistol said:

The rule changed with the 2006 NBA Draft. It appears that it will open up again for the 2022 Draft, but I don't think it's official yet.

^This. How many years of college - if any - should be the choice of the player.

I don't think anyone involved in non-revenue sports is advocating for huge sums of money for those athletes. No one playing volleyball or field hockey or cross country has any delusions that they're going to be superstars. However, if you let players control their own images, the endorsements in non-revenue sports could be a big deal for college athletes.

And again, I'm open to ideas on how to spread out revenue from basketball and football and other sports that might be bringing in the most money, but a little something spread out across the board would also be a something to look at.

So my question is … How much money does SLU make from the basketball team? How much from donations and how much revenue from the gate, tv, etc... 

Also we have to remember the non revenue sports are supported by the few revenue sports. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion if you allow players to make money off their likeness, you might as well just have free agency pay for them. Deep money schools would immediately line-up boosters to pay the players for $100 autographs or $10k to wear a sock that they like. Or whatever. The money that these boosters previously sent to the school would then go to the players. It would be easier and simpler just to pay them directly instead of the farce of having it go through some sort of likeness apparel.

So what's the problem with just paying them significant amounts of money? Nothing, except that it would become an arms race and eventually football and basketball programs wouldn't make money but would break even. There's no real problem there EXCEPT every other sports team would need to be dropped since none of them actually make money. The truth of it all is that football and basketball profits are the only things that keep the other sports afloat. So going to full free market pay for football and basketball players (whether by direct payments or likeness revenue) will basically mean the elimination of "olympic" sports at colleges. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the best thing both college football and basketball could do for these athletes is use a portion of the money they generate from the post seasons in both sports to set up some kind of  lifetime health care benefit for the athletes who participate in these sports.  It would be easier to do in basketball because the NCAA has control over the tournament money, but it is needed even more in football.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, kshoe said:

In my opinion if you allow players to make money off their likeness, you might as well just have free agency pay for them. Deep money schools would immediately line-up boosters to pay the players for $100 autographs or $10k to wear a sock that they like. Or whatever. The money that these boosters previously sent to the school would then go to the players. It would be easier and simpler just to pay them directly instead of the farce of having it go through some sort of likeness apparel.

So what's the problem with just paying them significant amounts of money? Nothing, except that it would become an arms race and eventually football and basketball programs wouldn't make money but would break even. There's no real problem there EXCEPT every other sports team would need to be dropped since none of them actually make money. The truth of it all is that football and basketball profits are the only things that keep the other sports afloat. So going to full free market pay for football and basketball players (whether by direct payments or likeness revenue) will basically mean the elimination of "olympic" sports at colleges. 

So in other words: exactly the same way the competitive balance is now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coach K's saying the college game won't get players like Zion Williamson is a totally weak argument. The college game didn't get Kobe, didn't get LeBron, didn't get Miles, or any other number of kids that went right from HS to the NBA. The NCAA didn't fold because those guys never put on a Duke or UK jersey.  Bobby Knight nailed it on one and done years ago; let 'em go straight to the NBA if they're good enough. They aren't getting anything out of going to the history of pop music 101 for one semester just to get a 2.0, and then skipping all their classes in the 2nd semester because they ain't coming back for their SO year. I'll stick with what I said earlier, pay them a small stipend every month for walking around money, say $1,000-$1,500, because they earn it by putting in the work at practice, weight room, etc. But it's got to be the same amount for all schools, elsewise it will turn into free agency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, slu72 said:

Coach K's saying the college game won't get players like Zion Williamson is a totally weak argument. The college game didn't get Kobe, didn't get LeBron, didn't get Miles, or any other number of kids that went right from HS to the NBA. The NCAA didn't fold because those guys never put on a Duke or UK jersey.  Bobby Knight nailed it on one and done years ago; let 'em go straight to the NBA if they're good enough. They aren't getting anything out of going to the history of pop music 101 for one semester just to get a 2.0, and then skipping all their classes in the 2nd semester because they ain't coming back for their SO year. I'll stick with what I said earlier, pay them a small stipend every month for walking around money, say $1,000-$1,500, because they earn it by putting in the work at practice, weight room, etc. But it's got to be the same amount for all schools, elsewise it will turn into free agency.

And still have them go to class and keep up not like what Knight complained about? 

I agree with all you've said. It's all such a farce. Even if the pros took NCAA dudes with all 64 picks in a draft there's plenty off good players out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe there should be "professional schools" and non professional. i have grown tired of the so called blue bloods buying a team every year while the mid majors and such just cant or wont. lets have a separted div. for the pros

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, johnbj14 said:

Bring back college basketball video games please and thank you. Allow players to profit off of their likeness. 

This. I’m here for it 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...