![](/sites/default/files/styles/850xn/public/2019-10/24787072095_89f2470b59_k.jpg.webp?itok=7OoHhdmI)
It's Bad Amateurism Argument Time!
Nancy Skinner's NIL bill was signed into law by the governor of California—it turns out the delay was so he could sign it on LeBron's TV show, which is how all legislation should be approved. And now come the parade of incredibly dumb arguments. Darren Rovell won a fevered sprint to the summit of Mount Take:
I’m not arguing for or against college athlete endorsements, but this is what comes with it: 1. The end of the NCAA, 2. Fewer rules, more cheating, 3. Complete professionalization of college sports — players won’t be tied to academics, likely won’t need to go to class.
— Darren Rovell (@darrenrovell) October 1, 2019
What the what? Rovell thinks:
- the guys in charge of the billion-dollar industry are going to throw their hands up and walk away because Jimmy Football can make some money endorsing colored pencils
- there will be more cheating when boosters can give players money over the table, and
- because Jimmy Football can make some money on colored pencils he doesn't have to get a degree.
None of that is going to happen.
[After THE JUMP: more bad arguments!]
The NCAA is already preparing to wave the white flag and continue on, as Rodger Sherman notes at the Ringer:
…the NCAA’s response to Newsom’s signing the bill was … discernibly more measured [than previous doom and gloom proclamations]. The association released a statement that said the new law had caused “confusion”—exactly what type of confusion is left unspecified—and expressed concern that “a patchwork of different laws” across multiple states could potentially make its goal “unattainable.” The statement also said that “improvement needs to happen on a national level” and suggested that the organization could reconsider its own NIL rules to come up with versions that are “realistic in modern society.” In a little less than a month, the NCAA’s stance on the bill has morphed from claiming imminent doom and gloom to conceding that a national law would make more sense than individual ones in all 50 states.
There will be a lawsuit the NCAA will lose, like it loses all its lawsuits. Once that formality is out of the way the NCAA will suck it up and try to set up a system where they're still in charge of the money, however they figure they can manage it. Class will still be required. Donors will split their money between the school—which still has the tickets and skyboxes—and the players/recruits.
In the meantime, many bad arguments will be offered. Most won't be as unhinged as Rovell, but they won't be much better. Here's why each of these arguments is bad.
"This will crush non-revenue sports"
For Power Five schools the results here, if any, will be a slowing of revenue increase already tens of millions of dollars ahead of the situation from a decade ago. Last year's Big Ten revenue distribution was 51 million dollars. A decade ago it was 19 million.
Non-revenue sports have increasingly been gold-plated as athletic departments find any way to spend the tons of cash that are coming in. From 2013 to 2018 non-revenue sport coaches saw their total compensation go up 43%. The worst case scenario for P5 non-revenue sports is that their coaches are slightly less rich and their equipment is not quite space-shuttle material.
Meanwhile, few teams outside of the P5 have significant donor bases that would be eroded by players getting money directly. EMU's football program brought in just under 200k in donations last year, about 2% of their 9 million dollar operating budget. And in cases like EMU donors are probably better off directly supporting the program instead of individual players. Non-revenue sports at places like EMU are only getting program donations and should not see meaningful changes.
"This won't be a level playing field"
This was addressed in a recent mailbag: the current environment is rapidly approaching the maximum possible recruit consolidation.
The current system is already making the playing field as tilted as possible. If anything, giving players back their NIL rights has the potential to diversify the destination for top recruits as teams with a lot of resources who have previously been hesitant to flout NCAA rules also pay players.
"This will result in the professionalization of college sports"
College sports already has the worst aspect of professionalization: commercial-kickoff-commercial. Nobody cared when the Olympics dropped their amateurism requirements and nobody will care when colleges do. People are willing to put up with increasingly awful stadium experiences because of their teams. They're willing to watch horrible garbage football for years on end.
The fact that Jimmy Football has some money isn't going to change their behavior one bit. There are already reasons, in droves, to quit paying attention to college sports. And it doesn't matter. To believe that amateurism is the load-bearing wall in NCAA sports is absurd.
"These kids aren't worth anything"
No, really. Professional bad-take-haver Doug Gottlieb:
It proves there is no real value in a college kids name and likeness. The power is in the brand of the school. Ratings for TV, values of schools to networks depend on the brand of the school. Not the athlete. https://t.co/IW2ESeWdLW
— Doug Gottlieb (@GottliebShow) September 30, 2019
Then there's no problem. Give them their worthless rights back and quit complaining.
"This will lose in court"
There's a strange thread of court fatalism running through some comments. Dan Wolken:
It’s worth noting, however, that the NCAA’s recent success at beating back challengers in federal court may mean that SB 206 never survives. The NCAA may be forced into its own plan, which may prove better than the one politicians drew up.
The first is that the NCAA will surely challenge this legislation in court, where it will make the case that it’s unconstitutional because it restricts the rights of an organization the U.S. Supreme Court has already deemed as private (in the Jerry Tarkanian case) to make and enforce its own bylaws. Based on the NCAA’s track record, I like its chances to win that argument.
The NCAA's track record is dismal. Regents of OU: loss. Assistant coaches: loss. O'Bannon: loss. Alston: loss. It is true that the judge in the latter two cases proposed milquetoast remedies as she systematically obliterated the NCAA's arguments, but this isn't a situation where the court needs to impose a remedy. It merely has to let the law stand. And it seems like they will. The NCAA's bylaws are not laws; actual laws supercede bylaws. As Sherman put it:
…this organization has as much legal authority when it comes to rulemaking as a board game inventor. It’s illegal for an athlete to receive a huge payment from a booster in the same way it’s illegal for you to collect $1,000 in Monopoly money when passing go. Sure, the NCAA makes rules for how its member institutions should operate, and if you break those rules the NCAA could prevent your school from playing in a prestigious tournament or a bowl game. But it’s the government that actually makes and enacts laws.
"We can't cheat athletes out of their rights and that makes us sad" is not a legal strategy that will win.
"It's too complicated"
It's not complicated at all! We have an entire economy based around this that everyone else participates in! Is it too complicated for literally anyone else to go about their business and make some money?
The complicated thing is what's going on now, when there is an entire industry of people dedicated to monitoring and punishing normal economy activity:
a lot of not famous people are going to have their lives measurably improved because they can coach camps or have a youtube channel and make some money without having to worry about their scholarship
— mgoblog (@mgoblog) October 1, 2019
Deleting huge chunks of the NCAA rulebook is not making things more complicated.
"But then they will have money"
OK, you've got me there. Then they will have money.
October 1st, 2019 at 2:59 PM ^
So because some guy who created a blog says cheating won’t happen means it won’t happen? Okay got it. Brilliant.
October 1st, 2019 at 3:05 PM ^
Well, cheating is already happening and it only constitutes cheating because the current system of rules says it is cheating...
October 2nd, 2019 at 4:04 PM ^
I think there should just be a minor league. If you don't want to go to school, then just go to the minors.
Hell maybe you get called up to the bigs mid-season!
If you want a degree and still have a chance to play in the nfl, come to Michigan or wherever.
This would solve a lot of issues.
I can dream can't I?
Whoever says this is going to be a simple transition is not thinking this through.
You will have QB's making $100's of thousands potentially more. Who do you think is protecting the QB out there every day? What about those guys? Most of them are not getting much out of endorsements etc. Why would they bust their asses all season protecting a guy who's pulling in enormous sums of money? The better they block, the more money he makes. That's not going to work.
I could get on board with some sort of revenue sharing but it should be dispersed evenly. This is a team game after all.
October 2nd, 2019 at 5:09 PM ^
College football makes "major league" money. If they made an actual minor-league, no one would give a shit. No one went to the University of Ann Arbor Aardvarks -- the ties that bond us to college sports would be non-existent and it would be the same as any minor league team. A few diehard fans but minimal to no advertising revenue, tv/streaming money, etc. thus there wouldn't be all this money to give away (or in the case of the topic above -- earned from endorsements, agents and the like).
College football is already the minors anyway, since the "we ain't come here to play school" mantra is far more common than the Jake Rudocks of the world.
October 2nd, 2019 at 5:16 PM ^
First, how is this different from the NFL? Certain players are multi-millionaires and others are paid far, far less.
Second, if booster networks feel like they want to give each player at least *SOMETHING*, there's nothing stopping a particular team booster or a consortium of smaller team boosters pooling their money to contract NIL deals to make that happen.
"Johnny under-rated 3 star recruit, as you can see, the fanbase really believes in the TEAM concept here at XYZ university. As you can see from the historical trends, traditionally the booster networks arrange for minimum NIL deals for every eligible player on the roster to get at least $25,000 per year, on top of whatever other position group or individual NIL deals they may get."
Or alternatively, something somewhat more focused for key elements of the team, like OL, DL, "everybody on the 2 deep" etc. to ensure that they're each getting a guaranteed amount for every live snap they play, or game they start, etc.
"As you can see from the rolling historical 5 year trend, the fanbase here at XYZ university REALLY appreciates OL play. On top of whatever NIL deal you might sign as an individual, if you end up going there, historical data shows that you'll likely receive a minimum of $50K per year in NIL compensation for being on the 2-deep and a minimum of about $90K per year in NIL compensation as a starter."
Bottom line is, the generational talents & nationally known superstars might get mega NIL deals just for signing with a certain team. Certain established starting players who star/are featured on the team may get very handsome deals from local business owners, multi-millionaire boosters, or pooled non-profit booster networks. But there is nothing stopping the NIL sponsors from decideding to create a minimum guaranteed NIL compensation for all eligible players on the roster, or additional minimum guaranteed NIL compensatin for all members of a certain position group, etc.
October 1st, 2019 at 3:07 PM ^
Prepare for your negs, but FYI he's also an expert in local Ann Arbor politics.
October 1st, 2019 at 3:13 PM ^
wow is that a bad take
October 1st, 2019 at 3:23 PM ^
Exactly. I'm going with the anonymous guy who comments on said blog who thinks it will happen.
October 1st, 2019 at 3:28 PM ^
How can you cheat if it's legal? Serious question.
October 2nd, 2019 at 12:09 PM ^
Teams who cheat now will find other ways to cheat, but that doesn't mean the student athletes don't deserve name and likeness rights. The cheaters will just move more into academic fraud, or paying under the table AND over the table to offer more than just the over the table rule followers. Or even worse, more places like Baylor and MSU will pop up controlling local law enforcement to ensure the talent stays on the field/court/etc.
Football is all about cheating. How much holding can you get away with before you draw a flag? How much PI?
October 2nd, 2019 at 5:51 PM ^
The cheaters are going to continue to cheat to gain/maintain an unfair advantage of course. But by making MORE things permissible, there's simply a smaller amount of forbidden activities for those cheaters to exploit. This improves the situation for four reasons:
- At some point cheaters will reach diminishing returns when trying to exploit a certain prohibited practice.
Does anybody really think the elite programs, (who ALREADY have no qualms about cheating mind you), are being half-assed currently? That is, you think they're only committing academic fraud, violating the capped 20 hour per week mandatory practice limit, or running PED programs a *little bit* & purposefully leaving significant untapped advantages on the table? Maybe, but it's doubtful. They're likely already milking everything they feel like they can possibly get away with. In some cases could they get MORE desperate & get even more aggressive than they were previously willing to get? Sure. But that also means they're likely taking far more risk as well, which impacts point #3 below.
- .Yes, on the margins, removing the amount of restricted activities related to NIL deals to players will create new types of "cheating/activities" around the margins of those activities. But ultimately, any breaking of THOSE rules would be by definition giving the cheaters notably smaller marginal returns compared to what's going on now.
For example, currently some schools have zero-limit bagmen being directed by coaching staffs and they're going against other schools that don't have ANY bagmen at all. So for example, XYZ cheater school coaching staff directs $250K to a certain recruit whereas ABC school isn't even playing the game. That's a difference of $250K versus $0.
Conversely, in a regime with new rules on NIL deals related to overall caps, prohibition of direct or indirect steering/control of NIL deals by schools/coaching staffs, etc., it's likely that the other school is at least "playing the game" by the rules. So yes, school XYZ coaching staff may be directly steering $250K to a recruit when the rules only allow 3rd party arm's length deals with recruits capped at $150K. But at least ABC school has a shot at their booster network offering a $150K NIL deal. School XYZ still has an advantage, but it's by definition much narrower than it would have been prior to the new rules being in place.
- This may be naive, but with fewer rules and a smaller amount of "dark corners" for cheaters to exploit, it's possible that MAYBE the NCAA will get more serious & sincere about consistently & competently enforcing the rules alredy on the books. Additionally, if cheaters do get more desperate/bold to push existing cheating activity beyond previous limits in a risky bid to recoup their diminished advantages, it's also inherently more likely that they'll get busted doing it.
October 1st, 2019 at 3:39 PM ^
Well, if one of the major cheating issues are players being paid illegally and you suddenly make that legal...I'll leave it to the reader to figure out the rest.
October 1st, 2019 at 3:48 PM ^
Maybe some of my detectors aren't working, but if you make it legal then it's no longer cheating. Right?
October 1st, 2019 at 4:06 PM ^
Unless you keep the under the table payments under the table to evade taxes...
October 1st, 2019 at 4:20 PM ^
Well then you're breaking the law which is a whole different conversation than breaking NCAA rules.
October 1st, 2019 at 4:29 PM ^
it is very easily defensible for an organization to say that breaking the law is cheating.
October 1st, 2019 at 6:09 PM ^
I'm all for paying players, I guess. I mean at least make it above board so we can use our money canons. However, paying players is a lever that will undoubtedly be used at some point somewhere to get a player to throw a game. Right? That would increase cheating.
October 1st, 2019 at 6:20 PM ^
I see your point, based on the huge numbers of players in the NBA and NFL who throw games for money...
October 2nd, 2019 at 1:14 AM ^
That is against the rules now and it still would be. Does it happen now?
October 2nd, 2019 at 4:34 PM ^
It's much easier to agree to buy an athlete's signature to get the desired outcome. To Texas QB: "I'm interested in buying a signature from you for $10,000, but I'm an Oklahoma fan and will only be in the mood to buy your signature of Oklahoma wins the Texas game this year." Perfectly above-board, as far as the outside world knows.
October 1st, 2019 at 6:55 PM ^
My problem with the professionalization is that everyone thinks money will fix everything. Is the NCAA a joke? Absolutely, it needs reform so fricken badly. Who here thinks giving 18 year old kids more money than they can handle is going to somehow help them better themselves and make it in this world if say, athletics fails them? Something needs to be done for these kids, monetarily, or at least to give them protection from injury. Some sort of insurance perhaps? Maybe a contribution to a retirement fund; insuring them for their future? This is a way more complicated issue than can be solved but just saying "pay the players".
This is just the first domino. We aren't far from full professionalization of sports, college fantasy football, college fball full free agency, sports agents that ultimately decide which "college" they will go to, etc. Its a brave new world.
October 1st, 2019 at 7:17 PM ^
Everyone seems to agree that college sports have become broken, commercialized and money-driven. Yet, the best answer is probably not "let's let even MORE money flow into it!"
October 2nd, 2019 at 7:07 AM ^
yes it is. and about time.
October 2nd, 2019 at 8:17 AM ^
The thing is, I don't entirely disagree with you on this. But it's gone too far. The time to nip this in the bud was waaaay back in 1955 when teams didn't really even lift weights and coaches made $8k a year. But we didn't do that then so now here we are with coaching salaries on a continual escalator, players getting paid under the table at some schools but not others, and all decisions being dictated by how much cash the schools and ADs can wring out of the supposedly unpaid labor of these 18 year olds.
Either the genie goes back into the bottle via a complete break between minor league football and the colleges or we do right by the current system. Unfortunately there is no way to just make everyone shut up about the issue and pretend it's 1970 again.
October 2nd, 2019 at 10:02 AM ^
I don't know that anyone is saying giving CFB more money will make them better people (certainly hasn't helped many NFL players). It's about being fair to them. They are the workers in a multi-billion dollar enterprise, they are entitled to the value they bring to that enterprise.
October 2nd, 2019 at 4:42 PM ^
Except that they bring very little value to the enterprise. Example: how much revenue did Michigan lose, and Central gain, when Shane Morris transferred from Michigan to Central?
If we are going to talk about increasing the money that goes to the athletes, I think it is best spent increasing the scholarships available to the non-revenue teams. Baseball rosters of 35 players have 11.7 scholarships among the whole team. Softball teams have 12.
October 2nd, 2019 at 2:17 PM ^
What are you talking about? Money fixes everything on this planet; once upon upon a time it could even keep you out of hell! With few exceptions, we are not talking about enough money to destroy lives (no effing knitting?).
I know a lot of people think that money makes poor people (students in this case) lazy and that giving wealthy people money motivates them, but come on. Don't assume they're all a bunch of hammerheads who couldn't possibly be trusted to handle a little money. Most people waste their money, particularly the wealthy. Test the market. I'm sure people will offer health insurance and retirement as incentives on top of their contributions to social security and Medicare.
We agree that they are entitled to their labor, but don't tell them how to spend that sweet, hard won plunder.
October 2nd, 2019 at 2:24 PM ^
Controlling salaries and keeping the game pure and clean is way beyond the limits of capitalism.
October 1st, 2019 at 4:34 PM ^
Nobody - and I mean nobody - ends their posts with a sarcastic "brilliant" like folks who fail to meaningfully grapple with someone's argument.
October 1st, 2019 at 4:56 PM ^
Mark Emmert, is that you?
October 1st, 2019 at 5:12 PM ^
To most, I think it's obvious this shouldn't increase cheating, if anything, decrease it. But I'm open minded. What's your argument?
October 2nd, 2019 at 8:10 AM ^
Only thing I can envision is that athletes can be lured to schools with boosters that offer kids the largest endorsement deals. Let's say McCafferty goes on a recruiting trip to Ohio State and is told by a booster, who owns a car dealership let's say, that the kid needs to forget Michigan, that his dealership will pay McC $500K/year plus the use of a car in exchange for the exclusive right to use his image in advertising during his college career. Next week, he goes to Auburn and is offered more by a booster. An easy write off on the dealerships' tax return as advertising expense. Hell, they don't even have to run an ad; they're just purchasing the rights. Think Ed Martin would have been above something like that?
I have no big problem with the equity and concept of scholarship athletes getting paid for their time and effort and being able to own their own images. I still have yet to hear anyone come up with an equitable system of how much and how to have schools pay these athletes. If it's based on revenue produced, Title IX becomes a huge problem. Female athletes and sports are going to be required to receive the same amounts, regardless of profitability. And if you are at a smaller school, let's say Eastern Michigan which broke even in athletics in 2015 after receiving a $3.87M state subsidy. what's the pay for football, for women's basketball, for field hockey, for swimming and diving, for gymnastics, for the dozens of teams that they run?
If you have a plan on how to pay all the athletes at a school, be specific on how to address these problems.
October 2nd, 2019 at 10:52 AM ^
What tells you that something similar is not happening now? If anything, the new California law will bring these above board. Then IRS gets involved and everyone is happy. Or may be not happy.
October 2nd, 2019 at 2:08 PM ^
Your hypothetical about the car dealership paying a player for advertising rights sums up my concerns as well. Its seems like the schools that have boosters with the most money will just be able to buy players. Maybe I am missing something and this isn't a valid concern, but until I hear this specific scenario addressed I am going to have my doubts. Some booster with more money than I can even dream of would absolutely agree to pay some big-time recruit a ton of money to come to come to their school for their advertising rights. I have no problem with players being able to make some money for their likeness -- or for selling beanies or whatever. Heck, if this means the Return of NCAA football video games and the players get a cut, then great. But this also seems to be opening the door to allow what is considered cheating today and needs to be done in the shadows to be completely OK, and I can see a lot of possible problems.
October 2nd, 2019 at 4:12 PM ^
It seems like a system could be created to manage this.
First make a rule that all endorsement deals must be disclosed.
Second the NCAA could create some type of independent organization to determine the market value of each player (or class of player such as five start recruits, starting defensive back, etc.). This would establish the top compensation the player could receive for various endorsement activities. You update these values every year based on market results. We would end up with something like the max going rate to be the spokesman for a car dealership for one year is $50,000. If the car dealership offered $500k that would be viewed as a booster payment to a player and not allowed.
Third the school or an organization the school approved could act as an agent for the student athletes. They would have a price list for the endorsement activities student athletes can offer and would handle the marketing, contracting and scheduling.
There are lots of details to work out, but it is not unsurmountable to regulate
October 2nd, 2019 at 4:47 PM ^
So you want to set up a system whereby the NCAA artificially limits the amount of compensation any given player can get? You'd need to overturn a lot of laws and court decisions for that to be made legal.
October 1st, 2019 at 5:47 PM ^
Since you don't agree with Brian, perhaps you could explain why you think cheating will happen?
October 1st, 2019 at 8:30 PM ^
I was so excited to get to the first ridiculous take in the comments, and you sir did not disappoint me
October 1st, 2019 at 8:51 PM ^
I logged in just to neg you. -62 seemed too high, had to get you to -63.
October 2nd, 2019 at 1:34 AM ^
Lol, glad you zipped in there first to make the stupidest possible comment.
Seriously, just go fuck yourself if you’re going to post sarcasm without any substance at all.
October 2nd, 2019 at 7:05 AM ^
what?
i'm sorry that your entertainment might be inconvenienced if the underpaid servants get more money. ungrateful as they are.
October 2nd, 2019 at 10:11 AM ^
Looks like someone was "triggered".
October 2nd, 2019 at 10:11 AM ^
Looks like someone was "triggered".
October 1st, 2019 at 3:01 PM ^
I'm still trying to figure out how I feel about this, since most on both sides of the debate (i.e., the "pay the damn athletes" crowd and the "don't let money sully our pure-as-snow programs" crowd) act as though the issue is simple and not problematic. I think it's really a pretty complicated issue, and that whatever action is taken or not, there will be some collateral damage to the NCAA landscape. And perhaps some improvement justifying the collateral damage. It's complicated, and I think both sides sell that complication short. (To be clear, owning one's own image is very low on my list of concerns. Athletes should always have that right.)
But this is, I think, flat wrong:
Nobody cared when the Olympics dropped their amateurism requirements and nobody will care when colleges do.
Lots of us checked out of the Olympics when they went pro. Yes, we knew the Soviets and East Germans were cheating, but there was a great reward in watching countries who didn't cheat get the upper hand. (Miracle on Ice, anyone?) Anytime you make a sea change in a sports landscape, people will care. And some will check out.
October 1st, 2019 at 3:26 PM ^
And yet, the Olympics persist as a wildly popular event every four years, despite a lot of hurdles (the impossibility of finding host cities for one) that college football doesn't have.
My point is even if tens of thousands of fans check out, the sport will remain hugely popular and profitable.
October 1st, 2019 at 3:35 PM ^
Maybe, by saying "lots of us checked out" he meant lots of people he knows.
Lots of people, in general, clearly did not check out. As you mention, Olympics are still hugely popular.
I, for one, was happy since we at least get to find out who is the best in the world, not just the best non-professional, which I kinda thought was the point of the Olympics.
October 1st, 2019 at 3:53 PM ^
And yet, professionals were allowed in the Olympics in 1992. I think it's a stretch to claim that decision over 25 years ago is a major factor in the recent dip in viewership.
October 1st, 2019 at 8:32 PM ^
That's just basketball. Professionals competed in other Olympic sports before then. Carl Lewis wasn't an amateur when he won all those gold medals in the '80s.
Comments