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

Tex_Ind_Blue

February 28th, 2018 at 2:40 PM ^

We go round and round. Yes, one can try to differentiate between donating money to the athletic department (AD by extension would be dangling futuristic facilities and fifteen iPads per recruits and extra cash falling from the sky) and straight up bribery (or donating to a cause close to the heart of someone close to the recruit). But the end effect is the same, getting the top 5-10 recruits of a class to one single school. 

If Oregon and Oklahoma State wanted to play that game, there are myriad ways to "bribe" a recruit and not even IRS can find anything wrong with those. For instance, someone applies and opens a new Nike store in the nearest mall. Or someone gets a large sum as payment for mineral rights in their property. 

Yankees tried to assemble the best team money can buy in late 90s/early '00s. Red Wings tried doing that in early '00s. They didn't win all the titles in their leagues during those times. 

Even now, Alabama doesn't win every year even though they amass the 33rd NFL team every year. 

Heck, even Ole Miss tried paying the players directly. It doesn't work that way. Of course, never say never. Some school might pull it off in the future. 

 

stephenrjking

February 27th, 2018 at 1:52 PM ^

I'm not sure these bins are exactly accurate, but whatever. 

I don't think I, as someone who openly advocates the full release of NIL revenue to students, can qualify as a member of bin #2. But I also think that people who just simplistically say "pay the players" don't realize what the various issues can be. 

Those who do suggest the "Olympic option," which I believe is another term for allowing athletes to make money using NIL rights. But many just seem to think that all of this immense cash entering the coffers of NCAA schools can just be redirected at the players, and that is false.

And Title IX cannot be hand-waved away on this issue. Any attempt by the NCAA to pay anything at all proportionate to the revenue of various sports to the athletes participants will run directly afoul of Title IX, which requires equal opportunity. Because football and men's basketball are the big revenue earners, and those players would be entitled to the lion's share of the money. Anyone who thinks this won't immediately run into serious legal issues ignores the annual round of complaints that the women's basketball tournament doesn't get enough attention in sports media, despite being considerably lower-rated. It will be an issue.

The alternative to this from the perspective of revenue redistribution is to simply pay all scholarship athletes some kind of "salary" as a part of their grant-in-aid, but that will lower the available payouts (continuing to leave cash payments an attractive option) and motivate schools to drop non-revenue sports. 

NIL rights aren't a perfect solution, because they don't directly divert funds from schools to athletes. But they do allow athletes to capitalize on their noteriety. I think a couple of basic regs to prevent foul play by shoe companies would be sufficient to keep things good initially, and if issues arise later they can be dealt with. But if a car dealership wants to give a bunch of players a loaner car for an endorsement, he should be able to do so, above-board. 

That won't stop revenue from flowing to the schools. But it will provide guys like Trae Young and Jacob Fromm a chance to legit use their fame to gain revenue. And if it winds up just being the same stuff they were making before, fine, it's all out in the open. 

This also allows star Olympic athletes like gymnasts and swimmers to plan ahead for college by making NIL money in their athletic (pre-collegiate) primes while still being able to earn a scholarship and compete in NCAA events later on. The NCAA would benefit from this quite a bit--imagine ESPN2 broadcasting a gymnastics meet because UCLA's Simone Biles and Stanford's Gabby Douglas are facing off in a meet. 

NIL ("Olympic style") doesn't fix everything but it circumvents title IX by getting the NCAA out of the revenue stream completely. Other options do have big Title IX problems, and those should not be ignored.

The artist FKA UN03

February 27th, 2018 at 3:54 PM ^

Just saying come on man doesn't really answer the question. Just because its not how things are currently done, I see no reason why people much smarter than you and I couldn't figure out a way for players to get a cut of the TV money without it needing to pass through the NCAA's hands first and thus complying with Title IX.

AC AT

February 27th, 2018 at 2:20 PM ^

yeah it is far too complicated to lump people into a few bins and for the vast majority of us it has nothing to do with what our rivals are doing. I think most people would like to see a system that makes sense for the kids but title IX plays a big role ulimately on what can be done. Any arguement that says solve this all by paying the kids their worth is wildly incomplete and naive. 

Olympic Style will have major implications for recruiting that would be wildly entertaining but i'm not sure ultimately good for the sport. If Rashan Gary was deciding between Clemson and Michigan, and could sell his likeness or signature I could just imagine how that would have gone down. 

 

 

mgoblue'94

February 27th, 2018 at 2:51 PM ^

But that is exactly what's already happening, only under the table now.   Ever wonder what causes those last minute flips/defections in football or why a coach as great as Beilein doesn't get more blue chip point guards?  At least under the Olympic model we'd be on even footing.  We're not exaclty one of the little sisters of the poor . . .

wile_e8

February 27th, 2018 at 4:02 PM ^

You could say the exact same thing about any occupation in existence. And under the table payments happen all over the place in the real world. But instead of dealing with the NCAA's weak enforcement wing, you're dealing with the IRS. So while you can't kill it completely, once you start talking about prison sentences the vast majority of people are going to work on the up and up. 

funkywolve

February 27th, 2018 at 11:55 PM ^

I'm just saying you're naive if you think giving a cut of the pie to the players is going to significantly reduce the bagmen.  If the 'olympic' model is introduced players wouldn't be receiving much compensation until they are studs on Saturdays.  Bagmen enter the picture when players are high school juniors and seniors and they are deciding which college to attend.  

DCGrad

February 27th, 2018 at 2:38 PM ^

Gloss over the Title IX issue, but the fact is if the money were coming directly from the school, it would be subject to Title IX requirements. One work-around this is to allow the players to get paid for their likeness from sponsors but not from the school. You would also have to open up to bagmen who aren’t really affiliated with the University. The schools will still make gobs of money though because they own the trademarks and patents, will still get donations, and sell the tickets and other in stadium merchandise. If you allow the schools to directly compensate the players, you will see the least high-profile male athletes make far less than their female counterparts because the highest-profile male athletes will make so much more than their female counterparts. That’s what Brian doesn’t discuss in his posts about this is that whatever anyone thinks the male atheletes are worth, that amount needs to be doubled and that might hamper the schools ability to pay. Finally, if the money came from the schools, there will be negative competitive effects as far as how deep FBS talent goes. Places like Michigan, Georgia, Bama, Texas, OSU will be able to bid with everyone, but more mid-level P5 schools will get killed. I do think college athletes should be able to monetize their likeness, but not through the university under the current laws.

Tex_Ind_Blue

February 27th, 2018 at 4:40 PM ^

Finally, if the money came from the schools, there will be negative competitive effects as far as how deep FBS talent goes. Places like Michigan, Georgia, Bama, Texas, OSU will be able to bid with everyone, but more mid-level P5 schools will get killed.

-- And how competitive are they now? Did you check the Top 25 over the season in the last 10 years? How many times did ECU or EMU show up there? Or say Purdue or Indiana or Minnesota? The top teams are already playing on a different level. Stop thinking about the utopia of level playing fields. They are all on level playing fields, just on different levels. 

bronxblue

February 27th, 2018 at 3:17 PM ^

I've said this a number of times about Title IX compliance, but just take the pot and divide it equally for each scholarship.  So if you have about 1,000 scholarships athletes at a school (I assume outside of the big revenue sports players share scholarships in, say, swimming), and they have a total of 500 scholarships spread amongst them (250 each), and you have $20M in a pool for payments, then divide the pot by the scholarships and so each scholarships carries with it $40k in additional compensation.  If you want to weigh them more for certain sports, then do that and make sure the number that match for men also apply to women.  

Again, these are places run by smart people who negotiate million-dollar agreements with vendors, apparel companies, travel agencies, etc.  They can figure this out the logistics.

J.

February 27th, 2018 at 3:44 PM ^

and I know this is absolutely crazy...

but if Title IX is causing a huge problem which threatens to derail college sports...

maybe, just maybe...

some enterprising politician...

could try to amend it?

I mean, given enough time, pretty much every useful law ever has been amended at one point or another in order to correct its deficiencies -- including (gasp!) Title IX.  Does anyone really think that its authors were looking to destroy college athletics?

All it really takes is an amendment that states something like "the proportionality requirement need not apply to monies provided beyond the cost of attendance in sports where revenue outpaces expenses, except such that (a) no revenue from the general fund may be used to fund such 'revenue-generating' sports, (b) all revenue-generating sports must be treated by the same policy, be they men or women's athletics, and (c) this exception is void if the combined level of funding for all non-revenue generating sports declines beyond 2018 levels."  Boom -- you can fund outlays to players from TV revenue without running afoul of Title IX and without having any negative impact on women's cross-country.

In reply to by J.

bronxblue

February 27th, 2018 at 9:00 PM ^

Title IX and its attendant requirements and enforcement mechanisms are revised when necessary; the notion that Title IX hasn't changed since 1972 is just flat wrong.  As is the assumption by lots of people that it's a the root-cause of whatever perceived failures or limitations placed on male sports, but that's another argument.

Also, I've never gotten the sense that the line people draw in the sand is the amount of money Mo Wagner would get from Michigan.  Even with your perceived change, his "cut" would go from, I don't know, $50k to $90k.  That's better for him, but I doubt screwing over non-revenue sports matters to its overall acceptance.

As for your proposed language, I can see a couple of problems.  One, "revenue outpaces expenses" is rife for creative accounting.  Attendance at Michigan games can be tracked by ticket sales, but things like beverage and food sales, merchandise, etc. aren't as easily quantified to a particular team.  I buy a Michigan cap, is that because I love the football team, the basketball team, the wrestling team, etc.?  How much does the SEC Network's value come from football vs. basketball vs., I don't know, baseball?  Schools are able to throw a lot of that revenue into a big pot because people don't need to care, but if it suddenly mattered whether or not a Michigan shirt or a pair of Air Jordans was due to basketball vs. hockey, that becomes an issue.

As for expenses, where do capital improvements factor in?  Crisler needs a new scoreboard - is that the responsibility of the men's basketball team, the women's basketball team, volleyball, non-sports uses of the space, etc.?  That's millions of dollars, and the increased revenue you et from licensing ads on that new scoreboard also comes split up.

Also, setting a specific value as the bar could hurt or help schools based on an arbitrary point in time.  Maybe you make it a rolling average, but then we get into purposeful manipulations.  Again, all issues you have to deal with.  Which is why I agree people should look at the NCAA and scholarships with a renewed focus.  But the fact it remains a thorny issue isn't just because people are lazy and the current system rewards the adults while the kids don't get much of a voice.  

Erik_in_Dayton

February 27th, 2018 at 1:55 PM ^

The players who take money under the table aren't villans, but the coaches and boosters who give money to players or direct money to players for the sake of benefiting their programs are villans in a certain sense.  They're cheaters.  The rules may not make sense overall, but they are the rules that everyone involved in college sports implicitly agrees to follow.  And the coaches/boosters aren't the ones being harmed by them.  Bruce Pearl has lunch money. 

stephenrjking

February 27th, 2018 at 2:04 PM ^

I'm fully on board with the coaches and administrators and agents and boosters being villains. Particularly since there are a fair number of financial transactions that take place to determine a player's destination without benefitting the player himself (see, for example, the player-for-agent-signing quid pro quo that we know was proposed to Tom Izzo). 

I think players are good for turning this stuff down and doing the "right thing," and I believe it's wrong to cheat and break rules, unless a higher moral priority (money is not such a priority) requires the rules to be circumvented. But there are scales of this, and when bags of cash show up on a high school freshman's doorstep that help mom to make the week's grocery budget and allow the family to get some Little Caesar's for a nice dinner on a Friday night, I can't get upset about that if the kid winds up going to the school on the hat of the guy who dropped the bag.

Erik_in_Dayton

February 27th, 2018 at 2:54 PM ^

...captures my thoughts exactly when it comes to the players.  I don't like a guy taking money under the table, but I'm not inclined to come down very hard on a player who breaks an NCAA rule to keep his mom from being evicted from her apartment. He's risking his teammates and program suffering within the context of sports if he's caught, but that's of limited concern relative to something like losing your housing or, to use your example, not having food.

Pepper Brooks

February 27th, 2018 at 2:01 PM ^

Why have rules if it is not a matter of shame to break them?  Or said differently, change the rules and enforce them for everybody.  Either way, those who break the rules should be punished.

Indy Pete - Go Blue

February 27th, 2018 at 2:01 PM ^

Let me say that I have not been a proponent of school's being allowed to pay football and basketball players.  First and foremost, these athletes are already receiving a value of nearly $75,000 per year for out of state tuition, room and board, food, equipment, and stipends.  That comes out to approximately $300,000 for four years.  Secondly, they are afforded all sorts of television exposure and NBA and NFL scouting exposure playing these NCAA revenue sports.  The players with a high market value can improve their skills and reveal their abilities to a gigantic audience which provides a very real, though hard to measure, value.  Also, if they are provided additional compensation above the $75,000, does that mean they are subject to income tax?  If that is the case, how much taxes would the have to pay on their base compensation of $75,000 annually?  

Now, I do understand Brian's call for justice as hundreds of milliions of dollars are being made on the backs of a handful of elite athletes. Yet still, these elite athletes are not only getting a $75,000 annual tax free valuation, they are also getting a gigantic platform to join these leagues where they can achieve their market value within 1-3 years.  In football, how many are ready with the skills and physical strength to perform prior to the 3 year minimum?  I would venture to say very few.  In basketball, how many are ready with the skills and phyiscal strength to perform prior to the 1 year minimum?  Still few, but there are some and there is precedent.

I have more questions than answers.  I respect that Brian is calling for the Olympic model as it preserves a component of amateurism but allows the athletes to capitalize on their image and name rights.  I don't understand what that would look like fully.  However, I am open-minded to a compromise if that preserves a level of fairness with amateur athletic school-based teams while allowing a handful of elite athletes the chance to realize their market value simultaneously.

stephenrjking

February 27th, 2018 at 2:18 PM ^

Here's what it would look like:

Katie Ledecky conquers the world in Rio two years ago and goes to Stanford. But instead of turning down millions of dollars that she would earn from being on the cover of Wheaties, appearing in commercials for Proctor and Gamble, and endorsing Speedo equipment, she earns this revenue she is entitled to and also competes as a scholarship athlete.

A Tuscaloosa Dodge Dealership known for its brand new cars being seen in the company of star Alabama football players rolls out a new advertising campaign. Tua's bright smile flashes across a tv screen, encouraging you to buy cars there. Najee flexes on a billboard in Birmingham. Both receive a small cash payment and a loaner car for their appearance, completely legally. 

Champs Sports at Briarwood Mall hosts an autograph signing for Rashan Gary. He makes $25 per autograph, and Champs sells out its stock of maize Michigan t-shirts by offering them as a package deal. Gary puts some money away into savings and buys himself a nice winter parka and an iPhone X. 

In none of these cases does the school or an associated institution (say, U of M health system or the M Den) pay the players. But they capitalize on value that they have. Income is reported to the IRS and taxed. Underground benefits become respectable, above-ground endorsements. 

Everybody wins.

AC AT

February 27th, 2018 at 2:32 PM ^

What if Rashan Gary gets $250,000 to sign an autograph to go to Michigan over Clemson. Does that still work in this model or are their limits. If there are limits there are bag men under the table filling the gap.

I'm still for this model but there will either be limits and bag men or no limits and a complete free for all with boosters buying influence in the free market. The latter would get ridiculous.

It would be very difficult to police limiations put on selling players likeness. 

 

 

JFW

February 27th, 2018 at 2:37 PM ^

You're saying take the University out of it entirely, and just allow the players to make deals on the side to cash in on their image/notoriety? 

That way, everything is ostensibly equal (still kind of sucks for womens field hockey, but maybe they can try to drum up some publicity for their sport). 

stephenrjking

February 27th, 2018 at 3:00 PM ^

Women's field hockey players still receive $75k in educational benefits per year, the same as other sports played by either men or women. It is Title IX compliant. The NCAA (or replacement bureacracy)  simply no longer considers outside NIL money (perhaps with some reasonable guidelines) relevant to the eligibility of an athlete.

It doesn't stink for women's field hockey per se, as they still get what they got before. They just don't have the earning power of higher-profile sports. But even non-revenue sports aren't total losses. Sierro Romero could have probably gotten at least a little cash with some endorsements, right? It seems to me that even with the reduced profile of most women sports, the ability to get some endorsement money is real and it hurts them as well as the football and basketball players.

sdogg1m

February 27th, 2018 at 3:36 PM ^

I like the idea of everything being above board but your figures are way off. Michigan has more billionaires in the network than any other institution. Michigan would never miss out on any top notch basketball and football recruit on the sheer volume of capital we could throw at a player legally. This reason alone is why the NCAA will not change its rules.

Simply put, we would make the Alabamas of this world look like they are playing in the minor leagues when it comes to revenue generation for compensating players. Yeah the first 10 national championships would be enjoyable but then you would have to change the rules again.

Michigan Arrogance

February 27th, 2018 at 4:11 PM ^

2017

2016

Alabama

Clemson

 

CFP

2015 Alabama CFP
2014 Ohio State CFP
2013 Florida State BCS
2012 Alabama BCS
2011 Alabama BCS
2010 Auburn BCS
2009 Alabama BCS
2008 Florida BCS
2007 Louisiana State BCS
2006 Florida BCS
2005 Texas BCS
2004 Southern California BCS
2003 Louisiana State, Southern California BCS, AP, FWAA
2002 Ohio State BCS

 

rc15

February 27th, 2018 at 3:21 PM ^

But why can't the school also pay them?

It doesn't have to be specific for athletes... If there is a HS student that is so smart that a university not only wants to give him a full academic scholarship, but also pay that student to attend, what's the problem? That student can decide if they want to take the scholarship and $$ or attend a better university and potentially have to pay.

Universities should be able to evaluate how much value a student attending their school would add, and pay that student some % of that in order to try to get them to attend.

UofM would have a decision, do we want to pay Rashan Gary $1 million/year or just offer some low 3 or 4-star that would be willing to come for just a scholarship. The school would have to determine how many additional wins, titles, etc. Gary would add and whether or not it was worth it.

The best players would go to the top schools that can afford them because a National Championship might be worth $1 billion to UM, and only $50 million to EMU...

bronxblue

February 27th, 2018 at 3:26 PM ^

I don't disagree with this model, but it is heavily reliant on small entities to comply with taxes and proper reporting.  And if history is any guide, that's not a good assumption.  To me, a single revenue stream that has a compliance department and knows how to properly report various financial transactions cuts down on the inevitable grift that would occur.

I'd also like to add that this system very much benefits only a small portion of the players/athletes even though the less-ballyhoed-but-just-as-important teammates aren't given as many opportunities.  Charles Woodson would have sucked up virtually all of the endorsement money back in 1997, but they don't win that title without Jerame Tuman, Jeff Backus, Tai Streets, etc.  And in terms of revenue streams, ESPN's payments don't care who is the starting center or a backup guard, even though those players combined are what justifies the millions they pay to each team.  So I think tying it to scholarships makes sure there is at least a floor for compensation for guys and gals who are part of the machine.

I'm also a fan of guys and gals enjoying their NIL rights, so they could still do this if they want/are given opportunities.

stephenrjking

February 27th, 2018 at 3:34 PM ^

1. The small portion is the main portion that people feel are jilted by the current system.

2. Woodson could have been a millionaire in 1997, but I think Tai Streets and Sam Sword and Dhani Jones and others would have made decent money that year. Certainly enough to make life easier.

3. I don't, in the slightest, trust a school's compliance department, and I don't think it will do a thing to cut down on grift. Does anyone believe MSU's "repay $40 for a $500 dinner to be eligible again, just don't tell us anything about Larry Nassar" compliance department is suddenly going to become ethical? I don't. 

bronxblue

February 27th, 2018 at 3:58 PM ^

1.  That small portion exists because the main portion has stuck its head in the sand about compensation for a long time.  It's a symptom of the larger problem.

2.  Maybe.  But I also wonder if you're a FB and you are blocking for your star back, and he's making $100k of your signatures and you aren't getting a dime because nobody but the diehards know your name, if at least having a floor wherein your involvement in the whole machine is compensated would be better than simply letting college-age students try to market themselves to local establishments.

3.  I have strong faith that good schools can handle payroll and accounting for scholarships a hell of a lot better than they can handle systemic sexual assaults, mostly because they can farm that out to a company like ADP.  Again, make it payroll and it becomes quite a bit easier to enforce without human involvement.

rc15

February 27th, 2018 at 2:21 PM ^

Why does it offend you that they could make more than $75,000 per year (in your words)?

How would you like it if your employer said "sorry, you already make $75k, we know you're worth 10X that but we aren't allowed to pay you any more. But appreciate all of the experience we're giving you! Imagine how good that will look on your resume in a few years."

And why do you want their scholarship taxed? Do you want academic scholarships for normal students taxed too?

Indy Pete - Go Blue

February 27th, 2018 at 2:31 PM ^

But this is the communist system that we have all agreed upon. As I mentioned elsewhere, title nine is communism, and it is built on the backs of a handful of elite athletes. I am not offended by the players making $100 million one year after their college basketball experience. I am all for free markets. That is why I made my comments at the end about the Olympic model.