What Hath Brian Wrought?

"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."

Would that mean that EA would be willing to make a new NCAA football game? If so, then I am completely on board with this!

 

If you want players to get paid, then someone needs to start their own professional teams and pay them. Otherwise they're student atheletes who have the privelege to play and get an expensive education for free--and get top notch training in wonderful facilities for professional athletic carreers. In fact, colleges should really be looking to charge the players who make it to the NFL, NBA, MLB for all of the expensive training they get for free.

As for corruption, keep investigating and keep prosecuting crimes like you do with every other aspect of human society. 

If a sport generates a net positive revenue for a school, then it should be exempt from Title IX. These programs are self sufficient and should be granted the autonomy to go with it. The traditional student-athlete model works great for the vast majority of student-athletes. The ones the NCAA love to toot their own horn about; the 98% "going pro in something other than sports." Nothing should change for the 98% who will never compete in front of tens of thousands of screaming fans or have their faces displayed on TV screens nationwide. They aren't celebrities under a public microscope. They are normal students who also happen to be athletes. Mandate that 80% or 90% or whatever of revenue generated get funnelled back into olympic/non revenue sports. Beyond that, the change need only apply by letting capitalism do what capitalism does. Each program can create its own revenue sharing formula for whatever is left over based on on field performance/jersey sales or whatever. Use those formulas as recruiting tools so the players have a little bit of an idea what a pro contract negotiation might look like down the road. Put all that money away until the player's eligibility expires. Lastly, for the love of God, let them get paid for their likeness. The NCAA makes money on the fame of players. The fact that players cannot get paid for being who they are in public is bonkers.

D-1 college basketball players absolutely need to get paid.  Pay each player the same amount across the board. $50-$75K for each season they play and if you want to keep a sheen of amateurism on it - put 80-90% of that $ into an account they can't touch until they graduate/officially leave school. Let them earn money off jersey sales and use of their likeness and put that money in the same account.  

Power 5 conferences should play their football players as well. They should get the same - $50/$75K per season. The other conferences will have to be less - $20K(?).I'm not an economist so I didn't run any economic models on this. While it could be tough for some schools, I doubt it will bankrupt the NCAA or big programs like Michigan.

This should bring down the outrageous salaries that go to coaches, administrators and dickhead executives. There's too much money in this for these kids not to get paid.

The problem with the NCAA is not cheating institutions nor is it the atrocious one and done basketball rule but rather that the institution has backed itself into a corner where they cannot punish cheating institutions in a real and meaningful way. You don't get any blacker in regards to ethics than enabling a child rapist (Penn State); promoting an abuse culture (Baylor); or sweeping sexual assault alligations under the rug (MSU) without any harsh punishment dealt. The last successful punishment that affected change that I know of was Michigan's basketball cheating scandal which was finalized over a decade ago.

Since then North Carolina has been caught faking classes; Ole Miss paying players; and we are still seeing the early results of an FBI investigation in which two names implicated were cleared in less than a few days. The NCAA is a joke but it isn't because players are becoming bolder in accepting compensation but because they refuse to do anything about it and everyone knows it.

The NCAA could allow for players to be compensated generously tomorrow and some institutions will still cheat. We will be back in less than a decade discussing moving the bar again because cheating has become accepted.

 

Hookers anyone?

This whole issue has me in a weird place.

I know that the current system suppresses the pay being provided to players. I also know that of all the inequity in the world, fighting on "pay the players" hill feels kinda wrong*.

I have trouble deciding whether giving the few players that are "only" getting a marginal deal (free college, training toward the next level) a better deal (that plus booster money) is going to offset the potential for changing a paradigm that we are all comfortable** with.

I don't know exactly what bad thing will happen if we let the booster genie out of the bottle, but I just can't see how giving fat cat-types full access to college players is going to be a net positive.

*cynically, this push for paying the players is because we are one of the lucky "haves" and would likely benefit from allowing a quasi-professional system.  If we were MSU or Iowa I doubt we'd be so gung-ho. 

**comfortable as in we are aware of the ins-and-outs of the system in place and still somehow get enjoyment out of it.

Another question. How do schools offer money to players? Are they offered as a recruit? Then do they sign a contract and are bound to it for 4 years? What if they are a 2 star who blows up by year two into an All American at a MAC school. Does he then renegotiate his contract and decide to become a free agent because Central Michigan can't afford to pay him a million dollars but Michigan can?

While I don't disagree entirely, I think sometimes Brian argues with strawmen.  Yes, top basketball and football players make a lot of money for their schools, and no question that that money would be better spent on those players than on waterfalls.  Here are a few thoughts:

• Fans don't pay just to watch Bruce Bowen, but instead to watch compettive games involving players like Bowen.  Unlimited compensation could mean that handful of programs become so dominant that they are essentially the Harlem Globetrotters.
• I think Craig Ross made this argument on the roundtable, but I think college sports popularity does require some sense that these are students who resemble the students that the fans are or once were. There may be some delusion involved but that's part of it.  If players are making into the six figures, I think they resemble players in Europe who happen to take some classes more than students who may not want to be there.  There's nothing wrong with this in theory, but the popularity of college basketball in the US is much greater than European pro ball and I wonder if explicit professionalization could reduce the appeal.

I'm not saying than the players shouldn't get more compensation than they currently do (six figures in tuition is a form of comp), but I think radical change could also kill the golden goose.

My post posted twice, so since I can edit but not delete I thought would add the following.  A compromise might involve a stipend along with a signaficant insurance policy for likely NCAA prospects along with a fund that otherwise compensate players going forward with post-graduate education and other benefits for those who don't make the NBA.

But I do believe players should have lifetime medical benefits for injuries suffered while playing for their university.