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

NCAA and One and Done

Recommended Posts

Without Duke on the front of his jersey, what likeness does Zion sell?  All he could sell them is his high top cut, maybe a #1 on the jersey, and the "Z" shaved into the side of his head?  Because the rest is Duke ..... does not Duke get its share?  And do you pay O'Connell, White and Goldwire for their images in that basketball video game because you still need five guys out there to play the game. And their opponents.  I'm not adverse to the schools giving kids a monthly stipend but you'd have to give it to all or Title IX will go nuts.  And you'd likely have to give it to all ... maybe on a sliding scale or something.  

I agree with the argument that Kobe and LeBron and Garrett and Miles all went pro right away and the college game didn't really suffer for it.  The best time of the year is March when UMBC is fighting to get into the Dance.  It gets even better when UMBC upsets a Virginia or a Ja Morant takes down Marquette.  I'm all for the so-called studs going off to their riches.  I don't pay a cent to see them at all.  I am thankful the "Zion show" is all over, just as I am thankful I don't have to hear about LeBron any more this year.  I didn't care about Bryce Harper, Mike Trout or Manny Machado.  

For the college game, the name on the front of the jersey is all more important to me than any name on the back.  I like college football for retaining kids for at least three years.  I root for the team and while the kid is a part of that, the kid as well.  That's why I consider Bonner the greatest Billiken and not Hughes.  What did Kyrie Irving play at Duke?  One year and maybe 11 games?  He's less of a Dookie than Hughes is a Billiken in my book.  But that's me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Taj79 said:

Without Duke on the front of his jersey, what likeness does Zion sell?  All he could sell them is his high top cut, maybe a #1 on the jersey, and the "Z" shaved into the side of his head?  Because the rest is Duke ..... does not Duke get its share?  And do you pay O'Connell, White and Goldwire for their images in that basketball video game because you still need five guys out there to play the game. And their opponents.  I'm not adverse to the schools giving kids a monthly stipend but you'd have to give it to all or Title IX will go nuts.  And you'd likely have to give it to all ... maybe on a sliding scale or something.  

Zion's face and body are easily recognizable by even casual basketball fans.  He doesn't need a team's jersey to profit from his likeness any more than a pro player does.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Taj79 said:

Without Duke on the front of his jersey, what likeness does Zion sell?  All he could sell them is his high top cut, maybe a #1 on the jersey, and the "Z" shaved into the side of his head?  Because the rest is Duke ..... does not Duke get its share?  And do you pay O'Connell, White and Goldwire for their images in that basketball video game because you still need five guys out there to play the game. And their opponents.  I'm not adverse to the schools giving kids a monthly stipend but you'd have to give it to all or Title IX will go nuts.  And you'd likely have to give it to all ... maybe on a sliding scale or something.  

I agree with the argument that Kobe and LeBron and Garrett and Miles all went pro right away and the college game didn't really suffer for it.  The best time of the year is March when UMBC is fighting to get into the Dance.  It gets even better when UMBC upsets a Virginia or a Ja Morant takes down Marquette.  I'm all for the so-called studs going off to their riches.  I don't pay a cent to see them at all.  I am thankful the "Zion show" is all over, just as I am thankful I don't have to hear about LeBron any more this year.  I didn't care about Bryce Harper, Mike Trout or Manny Machado.  

For the college game, the name on the front of the jersey is all more important to me than any name on the back.  I like college football for retaining kids for at least three years.  I root for the team and while the kid is a part of that, the kid as well.  That's why I consider Bonner the greatest Billiken and not Hughes.  What did Kyrie Irving play at Duke?  One year and maybe 11 games?  He's less of a Dookie than Hughes is a Billiken in my book.  But that's me.

Schools made money through NCAA licensing when those games existed. Make a flat payment to all players whose name and image appears in the game. There's no way to make it proportional to value created by each individual player, but it is better than it was when the games formerly existed. 

 

Edit: I'm framing this around bringing back NCAA video games. Just a way to potentially compensate players. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree ---- the face and body are his.  Then what does he sell?  Autograph head shots?  His prom photo?  I disagree on the pro statement ---- what does Jonah Bolton sell as a pro player?  I'd offer no one knows who he is unless he's in his uniform.  Sure, everyone will know LeBron, Durant, Kwahi, Curry ..... someone down the end of the Sacramento or Minnesota bench?  

I think the NCAA is rich enough to dole out additional stipends to all kids.  The superstars will have to go pro.  Maybe its time for the NBA to stop using the colleges as farm systems.  The G League is a good idea by me.  How's Kostas Antekoumpo doing?  Obi Toppin was nothing coming out of high school.  Now they're worried in Dayton he's going pro.  A kid wants to do that I'm okay.  But if he enrolls I say follow the football rules.  Players three years removed from high school can declare.  I'm okay with that.  Even with a red-shirt year, that's two years of college played.  Maybe if football kids don't like that there's the AAF.  I have no objections to the video game idea ---- but you can't pay anything but a standard stipend in my book.   

Carsen Edwards exploded in March.  Without that, does anybody know who he is?  To the extent March made him a star?  Isn't he ajunior three years removed from high school?  No?  Then he's back at school.  With his stipend.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter what they sell.   It's just real unamerican that you can't even profit off your own name. 

The video game example is a good one as that is what set the original court case in motion as they used players likeness with no compensation. 

Let's say college b ball 2020 wants to use real teams as well as player madness.  They do pay schools a license fee for logos and would have to negotiate individually with players.   I'm guessing for pro versions of sports games they work a collective deal with player representation. 

There's going to be all kinds of unintended consequences and outcomes but sports will survive somehow. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Taj79 said:

I agree ---- the face and body are his.  Then what does he sell?  Autograph head shots?  His prom photo?  I disagree on the pro statement ---- what does Jonah Bolton sell as a pro player?  I'd offer no one knows who he is unless he's in his uniform.  Sure, everyone will know LeBron, Durant, Kwahi, Curry ..... someone down the end of the Sacramento or Minnesota bench?   

His endorsement.  That's the main point of this whole argument.  And here are a bunch of reasons why it makes sense:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marcedelman/2018/05/11/9-reasons-to-allow-college-athletes-to-license-their-names-images-and-likenesses/#2025e7aa5488

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, TheA_Bomb said:

It doesn't matter what they sell.   It's just real unamerican that you can't even profit off your own name. 

The video game example is a good one as that is what set the original court case in motion as they used players likeness with no compensation. 

Let's say college b ball 2020 wants to use real teams as well as player madness.  They do pay schools a license fee for logos and would have to negotiate individually with players.   I'm guessing for pro versions of sports games they work a collective deal with player representation. 

There's going to be all kinds of unintended consequences and outcomes but sports will survive somehow. 

Mcbroom can guide them on ways to the $$

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The separation of the P5 and mid majors is coming if players are allowed to profit off their likeness or get endorsements. Why would I go to SLU? Who the heck will ever see me or care? The 7,000 hard core SLU fans? 

I'm not sure I understand why the 40-50k+ isn't enough. If not for SLU and the education they get for free 90% of college basketball and football players wouldn't make anywhere near that kind of money their first 4-5 years out of HS. This idea that the players aren't getting something valuable and significant for their time and efforts is ludicrous. How about we do this SLU pays the kid 50k and he's on his own tuition, room, board, etc … No extra tutors, no anything. It's a hell of a part time job for a college student. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, slufanskip said:

The separation of the P5 and mid majors is coming if players are allowed to profit off their likeness or get endorsements. Why would I go to SLU? Who the heck will ever see me or care? The 7,000 hard core SLU fans? 

There are only 13 scholarships per team.  3 star recruits have to go somewhere.

Share this post


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

There are only 13 scholarships per team.  3 star recruits have to go somewhere.

Yeah exactly it's not like every player can choose to go to UK.

Just weird that someone is forbidden from selling their own autograph or being in a TV commercial.   Why because they get a scholarship?  We don't limit other scholarship recipients outside work.

 

But Duke will get this or Kansas will get that.... they already do.   This gives a little more power to the individual player.   Let the market decide. 

Share this post


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

There are only 13 scholarships per team.  3 star recruits have to go somewhere.

Yea, I'm aware of how many scholarships there are lol. However, do we have a shot at Jordan Goodwin if he can go to Mizzou, Illinois, Mich, Texas, etc. He'd make a lot more money off his name there.  Why wouldn't any kid who gets developed at SLU for his 1st 2 years transfer to a school where he can make more money?  Kansas State's late developing WR probably wants to transfer to OU where he can make a lot more money. 

Every player at SLU already makes 50K. +/-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think about it, all the payment of a stipend does is to add another incentive layer to what place a recruit chooses to go to. This produces the following additional levels of complexity to the decision about where to go:

1. It used to be that the non ones and done types of players, the 3 stars primarily, tried to get into a school that provided a coach they felt comfortable with and liked, there were considerations as to how easy it would be for the family to come see games, the amount of minutes the recruit thought he would be likely to play, and the possibility of going to a post season tournament (NCAA or NIT).

2. After you add a stipend to the equation the decision becomes more difficult. Should I go  here or there, which place gives me what I want vs which place will pay me more? What is more important the money or the type of place I really want to go to?

3. Of course, the most sought after places will offer the least amount of money (even thought they have the most cash available). Why should Kentucky pay more than SLU when Kentucky is a prime sought after destination for the real top echelon of all recruits? What is best for me? Is the prestige place paying less more likely to sit me on the bench for a number of years or not?

Recruits are 18 year olds or similar, many of them come from non affluent locations and may desperately need the extra money. Adding  money to the equation will make the decision tougher for the kids. They may be blinded and blindsided by a $20,000-$25,000 stipend. The stipend may be a very good thing, but also it may be a source of confusion for some. Most kids will never make it into the NBA, but a significant number of them may be able to go play in foreign leagues and make a fair amount of money, provided they improve their game during college. Is a differential of say $2000 or $3000/ year between two given schools an adequate reason to change the decision as to what place to go to?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, slufanskip said:

Yea, I'm aware of how many scholarships there are lol. However, do we have a shot at Jordan Goodwin if he can go to Mizzou, Illinois, Mich, Texas, etc. He'd make a lot more money off his name there.  Why wouldn't any kid who gets developed at SLU for his 1st 2 years transfer to a school where he can make more money?  Kansas State's late developing WR probably wants to transfer to OU where he can make a lot more money. 

Every player at SLU already makes 50K. +/-

Goodwin had offers from Mizzou, Illinois, Michigan State and Purdue.  He came here because he wanted to be the star and so his parents could come see him play.  

At the end of the day, we're talking about only star players getting endorsements anyway.  That's who gets endorsements. This is similar to the panic some fans felt about allowing high school athletes to go directly to the NBA.  Only a fraction of high school players actually had the talent to exercise that option.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, billikenfan05 said:

This. I’m here for it 

Westy doesn't want this unless they fix the glitch on the last NCAA March Madness game, because I could be 5 feet behind him on breakaways and teleport in front of his guy and take the charge 100% of the time.

I just couldn't help it.  Like if you could walk up to a soda machine and just hit a button and get a free soda every time, you would, even if you didn't want one.

One time I bought a soda in the John Cook School of Situation 1 and it unloaded the whole rack, so I just loaded up my backpack and arms with all the free sodie popz and went back to my room and then I was so tired that I skipped the class I was there for and took a nap.

Woke up to my girlfriend blowing me.  After that I put on Modest Mouse - The Moon and Antarctica and just spaced out for an hour.  After that went and ate a metric fuokton of ice cream at Gries.

I probably drank enough to black out after that.  Hard to say.

If I could play an up to date NCAA men's basketball video game, I would.  And I would take the Billies to the 'ship urrrrrry time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 3star_recruit said:

Goodwin had offers from Mizzou, Illinois, Michigan State and Purdue.  He came here because he wanted to be the star and so his parents could come see him play.  

At the end of the day, we're talking about only star players getting endorsements anyway.  That's who gets endorsements. This is similar to the panic some fans felt about allowing high school athletes to go directly to the NBA.  Only a fraction of high school players actually had the talent to exercise that option.

 

I know who he had offers from and why he came. My point is that if those bigger schools could have told him he'd make money if he went there, the end result certainly might have changed. I disagree with who will get endorsements. It'll become a way for boosters to funnel money to players to get them to come. Sorry, but we just disagree on this one. I think the 50k they get is enough. 

I'm all for kids that can make it going directly to the NBA or even to whatever they now call the Development League. In fact I wish all of them that don't actually want to go to college would take that option

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jayson Taytum would have been able to make more money from his likeness at SLU than he could have at Duke.  The whole problem with the way TV currently tries to market the college product is that by the time one and done players have name recognition outside diehard fans, they are moving on to the NBA.  A kid like Tatum would have been able to make money through local endorsements in St. Louis than he could have made at Duke for one year.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, slufanskip said:

I know who he had offers from and why he came. My point is that if those bigger schools could have told him he'd make money if he went there, the end result certainly might have changed. I disagree with who will get endorsements. It'll become a way for boosters to funnel money to players to get them to come. Sorry, but we just disagree on this one. I think the 50k they get is enough. 

If college basketball was truly an amateur sport, I would agree with you. But it isn't. We're fooling ourselves to believe that it is.  The coaches of these "amateur" athletes make up to 9 million dollars a year.  These athletes get cut at the end of the year due to nonperformance.  They aren't allowed to have summer jobs.  Basketball IS their job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

again, let the kids with $$$$ for eyes go on their way immediately.  the G league and europe would love to have them as only a select few will see nba money at age 18.   college should be for student athletes that want to go to school and get the degree and experience of college.   the game of college basketball doesnt suffer one bit with the "stars" not coming.   schools will still have stars of their teams to follow plus now they would have the pride of knowing that xyz star is getting his degree when he graduates.   

seriously couldnt care less about the stars that after christmas dont even go to class any longer with the next summer draft being all they really care about.  

Share this post


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

again, let the kids with $$$$ for eyes go on their way immediately.  the G league and europe would love to have them as only a select few will see nba money at age 18.   college should be for student athletes that want to go to school and get the degree and experience of college.   the game of college basketball doesnt suffer one bit with the "stars" not coming.   schools will still have stars of their teams to follow plus now they would have the pride of knowing that xyz star is getting his degree when he graduates.   

seriously couldnt care less about the stars that after christmas dont even go to class any longer with the next summer draft being all they really care about.  

I'm pretty much with Roy and Taj on this one (I can't believe I just typed that!). At the end of the day people care about college basketball because of the names on the front of the uniform, not the back. If the top 50 players out of high school every year left and went to the NBA, G-League or Europe it wouldn't dramatically change interest level in the sport. It's already the case that G-League teams would crush just about all college basketball teams, but nobody cares about the G-league. So it's not about the skill on the court.

At some point there could be a tipping point where college basketball is viewed more like college baseball, but in my mind we are so far away from that and for now the $50k education plus a stipend and tv time on ESPN is going to be more attractive to all but the top 25 kids who are good enough to play in the NBA or G-League.

Share this post


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

I know who he had offers from and why he came. My point is that if those bigger schools could have told him he'd make money if he went there, the end result certainly might have changed. I disagree with who will get endorsements. It'll become a way for boosters to funnel money to players to get them to come. Sorry, but we just disagree on this one. I think the 50k they get is enough. 

We need to stop pretending that receiving college tuition is the same as receiving actual income. I can direct you to any number of college graduates struggling to repay what they owe from student loans because real-world incomes have not kept apace with tuition increases. Getting a college scholarship is great - it just isn't a salary. Period.

2 hours ago, brianstl said:

Jayson Taytum would have been able to make more money from his likeness at SLU than he could have at Duke.  The whole problem with the way TV currently tries to market the college product is that by the time one and done players have name recognition outside diehard fans, they are moving on to the NBA.  A kid like Tatum would have been able to make money through local endorsements in St. Louis than he could have made at Duke for one year.  

This is an interesting consideration that recruits would have to take into account if they're allowed to participate in the free-market economy and control their own images while participating in NCAA athletics. Is it more lucrative to be a big fish in a small pond or to chase the biggest stage possible? It's probably a case-by-case thing - who else would be joining your class at the bigger school? What is your hometown market like? And so forth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a lot of the concerns raised by @kshoe and @slufanskip and @billiken_roy are addressed by doing away with the one-and-done rule and allowing players to enter the pro basketball world whenever they choose. The truly big stars who will command the biggest contracts and endorsements will bypass college altogether. Players the next level down understand that they need the experience and exposure that college offers them.

However, we can't continue to pretend that a scholarship is enough for players when their coaches are paid 7 figures. That imbalance is probably the starkest example of the injustice baked into the system. I don't think anyone is advocating for the players to be given huge salaries, but they need something to acknowledge that they are working a full-time job on behalf of their school, and in many cases, those jobs produce significant revenues for those schools.

The first, simple step is to allow them to own their name and image like any other college student, or like anyone else in this country and economy. The second is some sort of financial arrangement - what that number is, how it should be spread out between revenue and non-revenue sports and divisions, whether it should be paid in real time or put in an account for after graduation, and those other details could and should be discussed in depth. But the answer can't be "nothing" as long as their coaches and schools and the NCAA are getting all the money.

Share this post


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

again, let the kids with $$$$ for eyes go on their way immediately.  the G league and europe would love to have them as only a select few will see nba money at age 18.   college should be for student athletes that want to go to school and get the degree and experience of college.   the game of college basketball doesnt suffer one bit with the "stars" not coming.   schools will still have stars of their teams to follow plus now they would have the pride of knowing that xyz star is getting his degree when he graduates.   

seriously couldnt care less about the stars that after christmas dont even go to class any longer with the next summer draft being all they really care about.  

 I think the NCAA really needs to change how they look at athletes when it comes to marketing their likeness.  It is only a matter of time before we get a top flight athlete in football or baseball who is making a ton of money off their youtube channel while in high school.  Should they not be allowed to play college basketball?

Share this post


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

I think a lot of the concerns raised by @kshoe and @slufanskip and @billiken_roy are addressed by doing away with the one-and-done rule and allowing players to enter the pro basketball world whenever they choose. The truly big stars who will command the biggest contracts and endorsements will bypass college altogether. Players the next level down understand that they need the experience and exposure that college offers them.

However, we can't continue to pretend that a scholarship is enough for players when their coaches are paid 7 figures. That imbalance is probably the starkest example of the injustice baked into the system. I don't think anyone is advocating for the players to be given huge salaries, but they need something to acknowledge that they are working a full-time job on behalf of their school, and in many cases, those jobs produce significant revenues for those schools.

The first, simple step is to allow them to own their name and image like any other college student, or like anyone else in this country and economy. The second is some sort of financial arrangement - what that number is, how it should be spread out between revenue and non-revenue sports and divisions, whether it should be paid in real time or put in an account for after graduation, and those other details could and should be discussed in depth. But the answer can't be "nothing" as long as their coaches and schools and the NCAA are getting all the money.

I am 100% in favor of some sort of stipend that is significant to the players but insignificant to the overall financial budget of the universities. To me $20k per player for revenue sports would do the trick. That would be $260k from the budget for basketball only schools and $2mm from the football factories. No non-revenue sports would need to be dropped and there is no reason to pay non-revenue participants. Admittedly the lawsuit from the women's teams demanding equal treatment would be forthcoming but at some point economics need to win out on stuff like this.

It needs to be capped though as any form of free agency where star players can get paid more in pure cash or get paid from their likeness (just free agent pay in a different form) would just further consolidate the power of the blue blood programs and further reduce my interest in the sport.

Share this post


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

We need to stop pretending that receiving college tuition is the same as receiving actual income. I can direct you to any number of college graduates struggling to repay what they owe from student loans because real-world incomes have not kept apace with tuition increases. Getting a college scholarship is great - it just isn't a salary. Period.

This is an interesting consideration that recruits would have to take into account if they're allowed to participate in the free-market economy and control their own images while participating in NCAA athletics. Is it more lucrative to be a big fish in a small pond or to chase the biggest stage possible? It's probably a case-by-case thing - who else would be joining your class at the bigger school? What is your hometown market like? And so forth.

So getting out of school with no debt is not a good thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, cheeseman said:

So getting out of school with no debt is not a good thing?

I got out of school with the no debt and all I did was go to class. I didn't have the responsibilites and physical wear and tear of a semi-pro athlete on top of 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...