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 3:43 PM ^
I'm not seeing the problem with any of these scenarios. Playing time already equals more revenue if you're hoping to go to the Pros so I don't see that changing at all. The other stuff you're just describing aspects of every other job (contract and wage negotiations).
The money's already flowing that ship sailed decades ago.
October 1st, 2019 at 3:48 PM ^
Your entire premise is that there's no money flowing already. If the money starts flowing it will probably work like every single other market that exists for labor.
October 1st, 2019 at 3:52 PM ^
It's almost like these schools should use their millions of dollars to hire people with the skills to manage these personalities and make sure the team operates as efficiently and effectively as possible.
Coaches get paid millions to deal with this problem exactly. It is the coaches and the support staffs job to make sure these things don't happen. Should we really prevent kids from making money for their skills because the coaches hired by these schools can't manage the personalities?
I think this is a horrible take that completely ignores the current transfer portal climate.
And donors are already paying high school kids to go to certain colleges - kinda the whole reason Michigan fans bitch about Alabama and Clemson's recruiting tactics.
October 1st, 2019 at 4:16 PM ^
What would happen? Literally nothing different than today except it'd be out in the open. This causes exactly zero new issues.
October 1st, 2019 at 10:01 PM ^
That’s just not true. Players will be transferring much more frequently based on $ available. Do you think that stud WR at Purdue doesn’t jump to a higher “paying” program? And what about taxes. Guarantee telling a player he’s paying 40% to Uncle Sam won’t go over well.
i have no objection to players being able to get whatever they can. But saying nothing will change is naive.
October 1st, 2019 at 11:59 PM ^
And what about taxes, you say? Surely its unprecendented for an 18-22 year old to hold a job or have ever paid taxes before. How could they possibly learn how to cope?
October 2nd, 2019 at 8:42 AM ^
I'm pretty sure that 60% of something is more than 100% of nothing.
October 2nd, 2019 at 8:55 AM ^
this is peak conservative boomer racist bullshit
"wait until these uppity urban kids learn about taxes for the first time!"
October 1st, 2019 at 4:00 PM ^
literally no one gets hurt in this situation unless the croot is amazing in his frosh year at OSU and then enters the transfer portal to Ann Arbor in which case Maxton Auto be like damn
October 1st, 2019 at 3:02 PM ^
It makes me irrationally angry that people pay large sums of money to Darren Rovell and Doug Gottlieb for their consistently terrible opinions.
October 1st, 2019 at 3:07 PM ^
20 plus years ago i was astounded to learn how many people succeed in life because they can effectively create an illusion that they have value and convince someone to pay them for it.
October 1st, 2019 at 3:21 PM ^
The monetary value of Gottlieb's hot takes is only dwarfed by his unfortunate college roommate's credit card balance.
October 1st, 2019 at 3:59 PM ^
Rovell I get in the sense he's always been a shill; he once talked to my boss on a podcast and he's exactly as dumb off-mic as he is on.
Gottlieb is a former athlete who, you assume, would try to look out for them. But nope.
October 1st, 2019 at 8:34 PM ^
There's nothing irrational about your anger, mate
October 1st, 2019 at 3:07 PM ^
I aint come here to play school
October 1st, 2019 at 3:09 PM ^
The NCAA is fighting rearguard actions. Gene Smith spoke today of how he’d like there to be one nation-wide guideline for how NIL money works instead of 50 state laws.
Thats nice. They could have done that before, but they chose not to. And now they get the whirlwind.
Its always better to do stuff like this yourself rather than wait for the government to step in, because once the government steps in, you might not like it. The NCAA richly deserves this.
October 1st, 2019 at 3:33 PM ^
I read Gene Smith's comments earlier today and my brow furrowed a little. A federal regulation would be easier than 50 state ones for the NCAA, sure, but Gene Smith works at Ohio State, in Ohio, and is bound by Ohio laws absent federal ones-- it's not like his program has to navigate the other 49 theoretical state laws, right? Made me think that he's more worried about being at a competitive disadvantage if another state makes a law that's looser than one that Ohio makes in the future.
October 2nd, 2019 at 3:33 PM ^
Yes, and that's one of the problems...
It will be a race to see which states can pass the loosest laws so their schools can attract the best athletes.
It's not competitive sport if everyone is playing by different rules.
All institutions would have to abide by the same laws, so it's gotta be federal.
October 1st, 2019 at 3:10 PM ^
This would be great for the student-athletes and wont change much for anyone else.
October 1st, 2019 at 3:12 PM ^
The camel’s nose is into the tent.
October 1st, 2019 at 3:17 PM ^
that sounds like code for "WWIII has begun in Syria"
Say it isn't so!!!!
October 1st, 2019 at 3:34 PM ^
Is the camel looking for the open kimono?
October 1st, 2019 at 3:47 PM ^
Yes. And once there, for its toe.
October 1st, 2019 at 4:33 PM ^
Nope. We are living below its belly and trying to deny it's there.
October 1st, 2019 at 3:13 PM ^
Personally don't know if this is the right answer and my opinion means nothing but this can't be worse than the current system skewed to the people & organizations that have all of the money already and no incentive to share it.
October 1st, 2019 at 3:19 PM ^
If the NCAA was smart, they'd set up a system where some portion of video game and generic apparel (not player specific) revenues get distributed to ALL players playing that NCAA sport, and commercials featuring specific players and autograph sales go to the specific player. That way, every player gets something, and the better, more marketable players get more, so there is an incentive to be better. A free market system with a social safety net, if you will.
October 1st, 2019 at 3:21 PM ^
It will be interesting to see how this all evolves. I always come back to two things:
- From an ethical perspective, this is good and fair for the players
- From a fan perspective, being able to pay players would give U-M a massive competitive advantage. We are the third-richest university in the FBS (behind Stanford and Northwestern). The more that player compensation is aboveboard, the better positioned we are to exploit our resource advantage. Right now we're losing out to more resource deficient universities (e.g., Alabama, Clemson, even Ohio State) because they are more willing to cheat and compensate players more than we can. With things out in the open, that advantage would go away.
October 1st, 2019 at 3:56 PM ^
Interesting take. I wonder to what degree national sponsors would get involved (Nike, BMW, Goldman Sachs, whatever). I mean, could Ford or Microsoft sponsor all of the players? Nike basically does that today, they just pay the school. At that point, it really becomes a level playing field that looks like professionalism. I think Michigan would be a huge beneficiary of a system like that because of our national TV exposure and brand name. It would also keep scum like Mike Dantonio from bringing in serial rapists because the sponsors wouldn't stand for it.
October 1st, 2019 at 4:32 PM ^
But it isn't about the Universities paying players. It is about NCAA athletes being able to get endorsement deals.
For example do you think an Ann Arbor Ford Dealership would want to get Matt Stafford or whomever is the best UM football player this year for a commercial spot...
Now Alro Steel doesn't have to wait until kids graduate to get them on the payroll. They can sign them to endorsement deals...
October 1st, 2019 at 5:40 PM ^
Yes, but "NCAA athletes being able to get endorsement deals" is directly related to the resources of the university. If you play in the biggest stadium with the sweetest jerseys with the most media exposure with the best marketing department et cetera et cetera then you stand to get more endorsement deals. That's to say nothing about all the ways that "endorsements" might be construed (maybe Stephen Ross will make a policy of putting every U-M football player on a Related Companies billboard and paying them $500,000 for it).
It also helps to, you know, be good at football so that video games want to put you on the cover. But all of the university resources could help with promotion.
October 2nd, 2019 at 9:22 AM ^
And instead of SEC Bagmen there will be SEC endorsement organizers.
October 1st, 2019 at 3:22 PM ^
I still don't understand why athletes are treated as special in not being allowed to make money from their talent unlike say musicians, artists, or any other college student.
As far as the Olympics go, the ability to be paid while competing hasn't changed my viewing habits at all. I'm sure for others that's not the case and would be interested in the number of viewers pre- and post-professional participation.
October 1st, 2019 at 4:03 PM ^
This! At Stanford, it is a point of pride (and actually bragged about in LinkedIn bios) for young entrepreneurs to drop out as early as possible because their startup had already blown up and they wanted to be the next Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg. And no one I know worries about whether it is good for young people to have that much money that soon, whether it is smart for them to miss out on a college education, whether it will give them a big head and make them less "coachable"...
It's an odd form of paternalism we have when it comes to college sports, and I hesitate to say it because I don't want to trigger people, but it does sort of smack of a "plantation" mindset. I mean, if the players we pictured raking it in via NIL looked more like the valedictorian at our local suburban school, and less like Ray Lewis, wouldn't our gut reaction be "shrewd entrepreneur, good for him"?
October 1st, 2019 at 3:22 PM ^
If the booster base is big enough with NIL payments, the regular way cheaters won't be able to compete.
I would bet that Stephen Ross can pay top dollar for a recruit's autograph and endorsement for his real estate empire.
October 1st, 2019 at 4:12 PM ^
Exactly, while, as JUB stated on the air "Every car dealer in Tuscaloosa" would be participating in, presumably endorsement deals (this is my interpretation of his remark), well, we have car dealers in Ann Arbor too. Cheating would not disappear, it simply would not confer as great an advantage.
We're not going to buy a car for Najee Harris' mom, but he could pick up a lucrative deal and take care of the purchase himself.
October 1st, 2019 at 3:23 PM ^
--I'm not sure why views other than those of the author are "unhinged", but whatever.
--As I see it, you have rules regarding NIL/amateurism being set up by one of two bodies: government or NCAA. One is a brazenly corrupt organization in which the members are interested in two things, themselves and money. The other is . . . a spineless corrupt organization in which the members are interested in two things, themselves and money.
--I don't know if there's money to be made by the universities/conferences/NCAA from this, because if there was Jim Delaney would already have done it.
October 1st, 2019 at 3:26 PM ^
“We can't cheat athletes out of their rights and that makes us sad" is not a legal strategy that will win.
Hasn’t the SCOTUS flat out labeled the NCAA as a monopoly as well? How in the world could anyone think they can win this fight?
October 1st, 2019 at 3:28 PM ^
i LOVE michigan sports. some of my greatest memories are of days happily spent in ann arbor with friends and family and a few thousand other like-minded fans. i wouldn't give them back, and i don't want them to go away.
but.
if i'm being completely honest with myself, i come down in favor of abolishing college sports entirely...there's no reason on god's green earth educational institutions should spend the billions and billions of dollars they spend so that they can voluntarily act as the minor leagues for football and basketball. the resources diverted from education and devoted to the administration and presentation of college sports is shameful, and most of it exists solely to chase more revenue...so that more college sports can happen.
but it's here, and god help me, i love it. i'm not going anywhere anytime soon...and maybe it's a symptom of getting older, but some of the bloom is gone.
i used to think paying players was a terrible idea. then CTE came along. and grant newsome almost lost his leg. and jordan mcnair died. these kids - my god, they are literally putting their lives in danger, and the ncaa thinks they don't deserve one goddamned penny of the (does math in his head) $20 million that michigan takes in from ticket sales for a big game? meanwhile, larry scott made $5.3 million as pac-12 commissioner last year, and he's saying there's not enough money to let the players get a few bucks for an autograph.
fuck the ncaa. give them some money for no other reason than the risks they take.
October 1st, 2019 at 3:48 PM ^
“there's no reason on god's green earth educational institutions should spend the billions and billions of dollars they spend so that they can voluntarily act as the minor leagues for football and basketball. the resources diverted from education and devoted to the administration and presentation of college sports is shameful”
WTF? There are still people who don’t realize that the athletic departments are self sustaining entities that take $0 from the institution? And it could be argued that the M sports brand (as an example) actually helps “recruit” students.
PS - There may be exceptions where the AD is not self sustained, but certainly not at UM!
October 1st, 2019 at 4:38 PM ^
UM is the exception not the rule when it comes to self sustaining athletic departments.
Some of the schools charging fees to students in the tuition would surprise you.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/why-students-foot-the-bill-for-co…
October 1st, 2019 at 6:28 PM ^
You are way off - MOST are not self-sustaining, or anywhere close.
October 1st, 2019 at 3:58 PM ^
Abolishing college sports seems a little nuts. It's part of school like all extra-curricular activities are. Performing and fine arts, community service, sports, travel, etc are all part of the college experience, as they are in high school.
It just so happens that people will pay a lot of money to watch participants of one category and not as much for the others (it does often cost something to view performing arts!). As long as sports are entertaining there will be money involved.
October 1st, 2019 at 4:19 PM ^
people will absolutely pay a lot of money to watch. i'm one of them.
part of the reason college baseball is lower profile than football and basketball is the existence of baseball's minor leagues, which splits the 'entertainment' revenues between players who are paid for their work and players who are not. if either the nba or nfl had viable minor-league programs, those sports would bring in less money at the college level, and we might not be having a pretty good-sized portion of this conversation. i think i'd still go to michigan games if cream of the talent (across all of the college landscape, obvs) was going to an nfl minor league. i love high school football - i don't love it any less, or more, than college football, despite the lower talent level.
note that i'm not actually advocating for any of this, and i know it will never never never never never happen. but i do have a hard time making peace with the fact that college tuitions go up literally every single year while athletic departments at the very same schools crow about the shiny new athlete-only fields and dorms and training facilities. the financial aspect of college football and basketball (as they are currently constituted) is fundamentally and directly at odds with the very notion of a University.
and yes, i know - the michigan athletic department self-funds all of this. but you only need to go 15 miles down the road to find someplace that doesn't.
i don't have an answer.
October 1st, 2019 at 4:40 PM ^
The solution is that the NFL should invest in a development league and the NBA should invest more in the G-League to make them more viable alternatives for 5* recruits and kids who have no interest in college but have the talent to play at a high level.
But why buy the cow when you are getting the milk for free?
October 2nd, 2019 at 9:34 AM ^
People will pay a lot of money to watch colleges (or, if we're being honest about where most of the money comes from, tribalism related to the name of the state the college bears) put out semi pro sports teams. Would people pay as much attention if random kids who were going to Michigan and random kids who were going to Iowa were playing a football game this weekend? It would generate as much interest as any random dance performance at the Power Center.
I think there'd be much more honesty in these conversations if people acknowledged that a majority of our fans, and most blue blood CFB fans, cheer for the team as though it were a pro sports team without regard to the university as an entity at all. That should tell you something.
October 1st, 2019 at 10:33 PM ^
Seems most people have come around to this way of thinking. I can remember just 5 years ago or so majority of folks online were against any money going into the players hands. Now it seems like that has flipped around and most feel that's the fair thing to do. The question now for most is how much? Personally I think whatever somebody's offered they should be able to receive.
October 2nd, 2019 at 9:25 AM ^
It's hilarious when you realize Warde Manuel makes more than Schlissel and anyone involved in the health system. For what, exactly?
October 1st, 2019 at 3:33 PM ^
Fewer rules does not mean more cheating. Cheating is breaking the rules. So fewer rules has to mean less cheating. Unless those rules weren't the source of cheating which means those rules can be safely done away with.
October 1st, 2019 at 3:34 PM ^
One of the only negatives I can see to this, and I haven't seen it discussed at all, is that this will open young players up to scrutiny and criticism at a much more intense level than they are now.
Obviously individual players get criticized a lot now, at least by fans, but they are somewhat shielded by their amateur status as part of the team. As soon as there is a quarterback in the middle of a really disappointing season, yet whose face is constantly on local TV hawking used cars, that player is going to be opened up to a level of anger and criticism that is largely reserved for actual pros.
Not saying that's a reason not to do it, but it will put added pressure on some very young people.
Comments