The FBI Investigation Is Actually Good Comment Count

Brian

636421200889615111-Pitino03

don't feel bad for these vampires plz

There is a predictable set of bins people fling themselves in whenever it's revealed that someone playing college sports got money to do so.

"DAY OF GREAT SHAME" BIN: A rapidly dwindling category mostly filled by NCAA administrators who are literally paid to misunderstand economics. Also includes revanchist portions of NCAA fanbases, the sizes of which directly correspond to perceived cleanliness. Michigan and Notre Dame have tons of these fans; Memphis not so much.

"BUT THE DETAILS" BIN: A slightly woke-r segment of the populace, this group is hypothetically okay with paying players as long as you have a 100-page congressional bill that covers every last eventuality. Like to bring up Title IX as if that disqualifies the Olympic option. Frequently baffled by capitalism despite participating in it daily. Extremely concerned that some people might get paid more than other people. Like positing the status quo as a potential dystopia. NIMBYs for college sports. They are in favor of buildings, just not this building or that building. Or that other building.

"WHO CARES" BIN: The woke and cynical. See bagmen as folk heroes, more or less. Advocate burning down the system but fight and/or downplay anyone who would talk about the hidden details as a "cop." Sometimes right about this. Hate the status quo. Wish to preserve the status quo, at least as far as the under-the-table aspects go. Doesn't correlate a willingness to ignore mutually-agreed upon rules with, say, screwing around on your wife with every prostitute you can find. Or having a fraudulent department in your university. Or ignoring a rape.

At this late date, the first group is hopeless. The second is irritating and largely arguing in bad faith when they bring up things like "what if boosters gave players a lot of cash?!?!?!" I fell into the Andy Staples hole a few days ago by quote-tweeting these uniquely infuriating  takes on why making the current system more equitable is impossible. I refer you to Twitter if you'd like to relive this dark period.

I'd like to talk to the third group, though. The Who Cares bin frequently overlooks any potential upsides to the underground enterprise coming to light. Deadspin's Barry Petchesky:

What is the purpose of any straight college-scandal reporting, other than shaming players for trying to earn a tiny fraction of the money they’re earning for their schools and the NCAA? (I actually have an answer for this! The only reason fans and readers really care about recruiting scandals is because they’re hoping to see their rivals punished, and to be able to hold it over their heads for all eternity. Everything is fandom.)

That is certainly a reason but it's far from the only one. Without intervention there is no way the NCAA's system changes. Revenues have skyrocketed for twenty years and the only concessions the players have gotten have been either court-enforced or attempts to head off a PR disaster.

Without someone coming in and ripping the top off the anthill* this will continue in perpetuity. And while college basketball players are currently recouping some of their value under the table, it's nowhere near what they would in an open system. Patrick Hruby explains at... uh... Deadspin:

It’s no secret that the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s amateurism rules suppress above-board athlete compensation. Bowen’s supposed price tag shows that players are being shortchanged under the table, too. Let’s do the napkin math. First, compare NCAA basketball to the National Basketball Association—or any major sport where athletes enjoy their full rights and protections under antitrust and labor law, instead of being treated like second-class American citizens. ...

For schools at the highest level of the sport—that is, top 10-caliber programs that need the very best recruits to remain elite both in terms of winning lots of games and reaping the financial rewards that come with winning lots of games—the same NCPA study estimates that the average player is actually worth about $900,000 a year. And even that amount may be selling Bowen short, because if Louisville’s players received 50 percent of their school’s basketball revenues, they’d each be worth $1.72 million annually.

This money is instead going to worthless things like waterfalls and football locker rooms with VR headsets and Jim Delany. It will continue going to these things until such time as it is obvious to all that the NCAA's rules are not only unjust but entirely unenforceable, save the unlikely intervention of a subpoena-bearing organization. It will continue until and unless the NCAA is faced with a choice between its rules and money. An NCAA tournament in which no one gets to see Duke or a half-dozen other blue-bloods lose takes money out of CBS's pockets and therefore the NCAA's pockets. And we know what the NCAA will do: it will bend as much as it needs to maximize the amount of money entering the pockets of its executives.

That is at the very least the restoration of name and image rights to players and the expansion of the Olympic model to all sports, because that doesn't cost the NCAA anything. The FBI's investigation speeds up that day—and if it's big enough it might prompt it directly. Therefore it is good, sports tribalism aside.

*[Or a player strike at a key moment. See my annual plea for a basketball team in the national title game to go on strike for 15 no-commercial minutes at the scheduled tip time.]

Comments

Birdman

February 27th, 2018 at 1:39 PM ^

But seriously I can't understand how these kids can't have a decent chunk broken off for them... Even if it is placed in a managed trust until they are no longer eligible.

The ladies can get paid too! Atleast there are pro sports for most men to get too, for the girls this might be the only time their likeness has considerable value. 

Fuck the NCAA 

Ali G Bomaye

February 27th, 2018 at 1:46 PM ^

Revenues isn't perfect, but it's probably the best metric we have right now. You can't use something like profits, because currently schools use a bunch of revenues on things like unnecessarily expensive coaches and the aforementioned waterfalls. If players could be paid a portion of revenues, it would be much more advantageous to just pay players directly rather than woo them with swank locker rooms.

EconClassof14

February 27th, 2018 at 1:45 PM ^

Thank you Brian. And it’d be helpful if the NCAA mandates lifetime scholarships so the student side of things is taken care of as well. It doesn’t take anything away from college sports if he players get paid. I wonder what the odds are of your fbi investigation yielding an Olympic model for all sports: 20%

rc15

February 27th, 2018 at 2:35 PM ^

Say you make $900k/yr.

Are there people out there on the internet complaining that your company also gives you healthcare? But you could cover the costs with your salary!

Who cares? If they pay an athlete $900k + scholarship or $950k and make them pay tuition, does it make a difference?

mgoblue98

February 27th, 2018 at 11:30 PM ^

not sure that we should take the model of napkin math to the bank.  The problem with models is that they are often wrong in the same way that a majority of Fed Reserve economic models are.  Heck, most of their models won't even replicate.

wile_e8

February 27th, 2018 at 1:52 PM ^

If the Olympic model was adopted, it would continue to be the same pretty good deal for the vast majority of FCS and FBS athletes. But the few athletes who are wildly undercompensated would be able to go out and get that compensation without having to do it under the table on the black market. 

wile_e8

February 27th, 2018 at 3:50 PM ^

Well, the whole point is that payments from boosters and sponsors are under the table now because they are against the rules. Once they are no longer against the rules there will be no reason for them to be under the table.

There will still be some rule breaking in the NCAA, just like any other sports league. But the NCAA enforcement wing might stop being a joke once you get rid of the byzantine rules surrounding extra benefits to athletes. 

wile_e8

February 27th, 2018 at 3:57 PM ^

If all the ticket buying fans and and TV set eyeballs go to to Vince's league, and then he shares an appropriate portion of the resulting revenue with the players, sure. But as long as colleges are raking in hundreds of millions of dollars surrrounding their sports programs and want to win, they're going to want to attract the best players to win more. So until there is no longer any money in college sports, there is always going to be incentive to pay the best players their true market value. 

Tex_Ind_Blue

February 27th, 2018 at 4:24 PM ^

I doubt Vince Macmahon or anyone else for that matter has the patience and bank balance to stick around the 5-10 year it will take to establish a league comparable and competing against the NCAA system. 

bronxblue

February 27th, 2018 at 3:12 PM ^

I'm sure they wouldn't mind if it was better.  Nobody would be hurt if in addition to what they got now, they also got a check that gave them a small piece of the revenue they generate for their schools.  I mean, the money otherwise goes to building nicer lockerrooms and million-dollar salaries for linebacker coaches.  It's not like this excess is being used to fund scholarships for disadvantaged students or sick kids.  It's so that Dave Brandon can own another gaudy house.

Mpfnfu Ford

February 27th, 2018 at 4:48 PM ^

Instead of asking people who are extremely valuable to sacrifice their worth to subsidize less valuable players. That people insist on pretending that Michigan and Eastern Michigan are equals against all evidence is no excuse to go crafting a system that indulges such fantasies.

Brian8603

February 27th, 2018 at 3:27 PM ^

the current system sucks if you're Rashan Gary or Mo Bamba but it's a great deal for the vast majority of student athletes. I'm all for a more equitable distribution of benefits but giving this over to the unfettered marketplace would detroy a large chunk of colleg athletics.

ish

February 27th, 2018 at 1:49 PM ^

this isn't sports tribalism aside.  to the extent that players are paid, either through name and likeness or directly, it benefits michigan.  don't underestimate the michigan money canon.

814 East U

February 27th, 2018 at 1:53 PM ^

Can we just let players capitalize on their likeness or would that just create "Random booster pays player $1 million for signed jersey"?

Other than Texas oil money, it is hard for me to imagine more than a handful of football players receiving more than 5 figures on a regular basis from boosters. Then again, the SEC loves their football teams.

If a ton of Derrick Greens (5 star busts) receive $100,000+ then maybe boosters are more careful with their cash? 

stephenrjking

February 27th, 2018 at 1:58 PM ^

I'm not a fan of "random booster pays $1 million for signed jersey" and I hope that can be avoided. But I think it would be productive to open the market and see what happens, as I say below. Right now athletes are severely restricted in what they can do to earn money on the side (because it makes them "professional") and eliminating this issue will eliminate a lot of the problems.

It will also expose others, like the random booster, which would be a good way to deal with situations that are currently out of public view. For example, it shouldn't be too hard to see the issue and draw up a regulation to limit this sort of thing (Grant Newsome suggests a cap on NIL income, I would think just getting "random booster" to hire the athlete to make public appearances and shill for random booster's index fund would be enough). 

Honestly, though, if it just becomes guys charging a bunch of money for autographs, it might feel a bit greasy, but people will pay for those autographs and it's no greasier than universities making millions of dollars in "donations" for luxury box sales. 

stephenrjking

February 27th, 2018 at 2:22 PM ^

That's a good question. I don't like it, because it is clearly not a fair payment for the value of the autographed jersey. But other than a cap on income as Newsome proposed (a cap I don't think is even necessary unless there's a lot of ridiculousness like this) I'm not sure it's necessary to have limits on this right out of the gate. Let the market sort itself out, and if there are problems, fix them. 

The one worry I have is shoe companies basically controlling who their employed athletes play for. Perhaps just restricting athletes from appearing in actual team apparel (ie Trae Young can't appear in an Oklahoma jersey) is enough. Perhaps limited endorsements from companies that endorse teams in the sport being played. I don't know. 

So to answer your question indirectly, I don't like it, but that doesn't mean it's either going to happen or that it's the end of the world if it does. I would say, let's see what happens.

rc15

February 27th, 2018 at 3:43 PM ^

Yes. Nothing. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Ok State isn't the only team with billionaires that are willing to try to buy a championship. Whatever school or booster that values the kid most will win the bidding war.

If a kid brings that much value to their school, why shouldn't they be compensated for that?

rc15

February 27th, 2018 at 8:01 PM ^

I am making up numbers, but they are at least in the right ballpark. Schools and booster’s wouldn’t be... They would figure out what the kid is worth to the school/team, and make an offer accordingly. They aren’t going to blindly throw $ at a kid.

rc15

February 27th, 2018 at 9:12 PM ^

According to the WSJ, UM football is worth $811 million, OSU $947 million. If we won a NC next year, I’m guessing that gap would close significantly, so $100 million seems like its in the right ballpark...

Michigan has 1:10 odds to win the NC next year according to Vegas. Since Vegas is trying to make money, lets say they have a 5% chance to win. Would a 5-star QB (or even Patterson becoming eligible) change that to 6%? There’s your 1 %.

Either way, the exact numbers don’t matter. Clearly top athletes are worth significantly more than their scholarship value, and boosters/schools would do the math to figure out how much.

Tex_Ind_Blue

February 27th, 2018 at 4:33 PM ^

How many championships have Oregon and Oklahoma State has won since their rich alums have started to bankroll their respective alma maters? This is a BS argument. Bankrolling a program by itself doesn't guarantee wins. A great team, of course. But it takes the actual players playing to win games. Yankees tried and succeded to some extent. But other baseball teams also won during that era. 

Monocle Smile

February 27th, 2018 at 6:37 PM ^

rc15 is okay with schools and boosters straight-up bribing players to come to their schools and play sports. Blue Mike argued that this would merely mean schools with deep-pocketed boosters with enough passion would merely bribe the top 5-10 recruits every year and virtually guarantee titles.

You said that this wouldn't happen because boosters currrently donate loads of money to college athletic programs and yet we don't see singular dominance.

This is confusing because I'm not sure why you think a donation to an athletic program and direct, specific player bribes have the same effects.

rc15

February 27th, 2018 at 6:57 PM ^

Tons of schools have billionaires or multi-millionaires that would pay (not bribe) kids to go to their school. The result would probably be pretty close to what we have now, with some Texas schools, Michigan, and Stanford getting a few more 5-stars. Billionaires won’t be willing to shell our millions for a kid that may give them a 1% better chance at winning a NC. Especially not enough to outbid everyone for the top 10. I think it would actually make G5 schools relevant again because they could decide to use their whole “budget” on a 5 star.

rc15

February 27th, 2018 at 7:23 PM ^

My ideal scenario though would be to allow a kickstarter type crowd funding to pay athletes to not enter the draft early. They are only eligible if they already have a degree, and get paid once they leave school the following year. Encourages degrees in 3 years, which the NCAA should be pushing, keeps athletes in school longer, and they have a gaurantee when they get out. Would Peppers have stayed this year if he knew he would get a similar amount as his rookie salary? Probably.