My Response to Pat Forde's Article: Either Bill Self is an Idiot or Clean. You can't Have Both.
-
@HighEliteMajor Entry-Level people don’t have another business willing to pay them hundreds of thousands of dollars to stay and work at their current business, costing that business they currently work for, nothing. It might even cause their very good employees to stay a little bit longer and increase the value of their business and the product/service they offer.
-
@Kcmatt7 however, the NBA isn’t currently willing to pay these kids right out of HS. They also only pay a few players relatively speaking.
Look at the pay scale of the G league and compare that cost to college - at best they are comparative depending on the school.
-
@Bwag I’m not talking about the NBA…
-
@justanotherfan I love how the ownership issue is cast aside. How the fact that owners “own” the facilities, the brand, the product — and the owners assume all the risk. It’s the same argument these silly “pay me $15 an hour minimum wage” folks whine about, then they can’t figure out why employees get let go and businesses shut down. It’s the “evil employer” argument that we hear all the time from one segment of our society, with complete disregard for the risk, the hard work, the anxiety, and the equity invested by owners.
The players are interchangeable – now. I doubt you disagree with that qualification. I agree that if the top one third left, it would be a different story. I encourage that possibility as my my solution is competition. My solution is to permit every player to test and get his fair market value.
However, where I resist is when there is the insistence to artificially change an organization’s internal rules to suit the desires for compensation. Go do your thing somewhere else. Let the NCAA compete with its model. The NCAA has its model. It’s a choice. Not the only choice. Lots of choices. When there are more choices, then that will naturally influence the NCAA to make its own choices. I would argue the NCAA should buckle down harder. I chuckle at the idea of “change”, as if those that resist are missing something.
@Kcmatt7 So, where is this business willing to pay them hundreds of thousands of dollars? And doesn’t that defeat a part of the argument? If there is a business willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the kids choose NCAA basketball, what does that tell you? It tells you that the total value of NCAA basketball is worth more overall. However, if there are not these other businesses willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars, that tells us something as well. The market says the value isn’t there. This is inescapable.
-
@HighEliteMajor Where are these businesses? Well, one looks like an X, the other similar to a check mark, and the other has three stripes. Maybe you haven’t read the news.
These players take the money from the shoe companies, and STILL play NCAA Basketball. What does that tell you? The rule isn’t working. It tells you that the value of these kids is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. The market says the value is there. This is inescapable.
-
At this point in history owning a pro sports franchise is probably the least risky investment anyone can make. It’s a status symbol, not a business. It’s a monopoly that is set up and guaranteed to make money. The way revenue sharing and such work in the pros basically guarantees a profit for ownership unless they are setting money on fire.
The current NBA CBA limits the amount the players can make based on revenues. The agreement guarantees that ownership will only spend a certain amount on player salaries (the largest expenditure). There is almost no risk associated with owning a pro franchise.
The government protects your monopoly. You can insist on public funding for playing facilities (most don’t actually “own” those). The product is the talent of the players, so owners don’t “own” that. All they own is the name on the front of the jersey.
So your primary argument, that ownership owns the facilities, the brand, the product - and owners assume all the risk, is patently false. They don’t own the facilities in most cases. They don’t own the product. They don’t assume risk because the collective bargaining agreement and government monopoly protection have reduced that risk to a negligible amount. The jerseys are sponsored, so while they own the “brand”, nobody would be paying to see just anyone running around in the jerseys.
Sports has value only because of the players. Without that, the “brands” are worthless. Don’t believe me? If you go to the KU Store online, you can find 2013 replica jerseys with the number 5 or the number 23 on them. Strangely, #10 and #20 are not marketed. Looking at the t-shirts with numbers on them, I see a #0 and #11. I doubt any of us has to think too hard about why those numbers were chosen to be mass produced.
-
@Kcmatt7 BOOM!! Nailed it.
Who gives a flying F*** what ex slave state idiots like that think.
Bill Self’s integrity and class are second to none. Period. No way in hell would he do anything to tarnish KU’s reputation or his own. No freeking way. He would rather saw his own arm off than do anything to hurt the university, the basketball team or his players or himself and his family. No way, I dont buy for one second that he is an idiot either. We have all seen how incredibly intelligent and well spoken that guy is.
Roy Williams was a freeking boy scout while at KU.
Bill Self has been even better.
-
@justanotherfan And the NCAA monopoly is largely funded by the tax dollars that created most of its membership, as well as being able to exist solely due to the ability to use draconian sanctions to stamp out any schools that choose to compete under a different financial model.
-
@justanotherfan I’m not sure how or why you moved to a pro sports franchise. I’m talking about colleges and the NCAA. Nonetheless, your argument is from the “attack the man” playbook, to run down anyone with money, or risk, or debt. Easy to minimize it when your neck’s not on the line. Heck, even if you dismiss that, it’s THEIR money, not yours. Surprising. But I know, it’s all unfair.
Your final paragraph moves to something relevant. But it again, proves my point. How much would that jersey be worth WITHOUT Kansas on the front? I tell you what, have Josh Jackson just go and sell “Josh Jackson” jerseys. Worth zero. Otherwise, if he could make lots of money out of high school doing that, he would. No, there are not Josh Jackson stores. There are KU stores. Whether its Gooden, or TRob, or Mason – they’re all “0” on the back. Like cattle going in, and going out.
The proof on quality of the game? Look at women’s basketball. That’s really low quality, below the rim, slow, etc. They fill arenas because of the universities.
If I’m a player and I don’t want my number used (meaning the one assigned to me by the school on their jersey, at their school, in their arena), then don’t sign on the dotted line. Of course, that would require scrutiny of personal responsibility, and it’s easier to blame others for choices. Don’t play CBB. I choose to play, knowing the playing field, yet still whine. Good grief.
@mayjay You mean like the NAIA? And, of course, you know the NCAA is not a monopoly. You’re just saying that for dramatic effect, right? I know some like throwing that around because it sounds nice.
@Kcmatt7 Actually, it seems to be working fine, by and large.
-
@HighEliteMajor How is the rule working fine?
Because 99% of the athletes follow a rule that wouldn’t effect them whether or not it even existed?
How about you look at the percentages of those following the rules inside just the P5 conferences in football and basketball. You know, the two sports that make all of the money.
Do you still think the rules are working for them? What percentage of players do you think are following the rules in those conferences?
Let’s discuss how you see the rule as working fine? Because I sure don’t see it working.
-
Obviously it doesn’t really work in the delusional fantasy world the NCAA parades, because most players were getting paid one way or another.
-
Shoe companies and agents are capitalizing on these kids by getting an early jump. NCAA coaches are visiting jr high’s to evaluate new talent to get an early advantage over opposing coaches. People tend to forget about rules when big money is waived in their face. The only real fix is to let 18 year olds enter the NBA draft and move on. That would cut out almost all of the problem. I mean Weed is illegal almost everywhere yet people still smoke it. The law only works if people choose to obey it.
-
@Kcmatt7 @BShark Ok, play along with me here. Seriously, how is it not working? Simply because there are violators doesn’t mean a law or rule doesn’t work, right? Nor does it mean that it isn’t a net positive. So who is disaffected? Thousands of athletes get scholarships, and benefit, and get an education (including the thousands in the big 2 sports that don’t “go pro.”).
We have a distaste because of the underbelly of things, which we are largely unaffected by. And the athletes aren’t mistreated. They’re coddled. Further, the only real issue is enforcement and the effectiveness of that enforcement.
Where’s the harm?
The sport (CBB) makes millions, funds schools and other programs, educates millions over time – the issue always comes back to the discussion point of wanting to change the rules to pay players.
So, what happens if everyone just leaves the NCAA alone?
@Statmachine We should let adults make money, and make a living. But don’t think for a minute that will quiet the Jay Bilas crowd. They hate the NCAA and the bullhorn speeches are focused on getting players paid. And when they get paid, it will be “we want more.” It will never end.
-
All I’m really saying is the players have more value than what the NCAA provides.
I’m all for what statmachine suggested in letting them go straight to the NBA again.
-
HighEliteMajor said:
@Kcmatt7 @BShark Ok, play along with me here. Seriously, how is it not working? Simply because there are violators doesn’t mean a law or rule doesn’t work, right?
Correct. But if the rule or law is, by and large, not being followed, it ISN’T working. This rule is not being followed by a majority of athletes that make you 99% of your income. That is a problem, and that means the rule isn’t working. It is creating a competitive imbalance.
Nor does it mean that it isn’t a net positive. So who is disaffected? Thousands of athletes get scholarships, and benefit, and get an education (including the thousands in the big 2 sports that don’t “go pro.”).
We have a distaste because of the underbelly of things, which we are largely unaffected by. And the athletes aren’t mistreated. They’re coddled.
Those who actually play by the rules are affected. Athletes who are taking sham classes because their entire life is built on making as much money playing sports as possible, are affected. Thousands of players who don’t go pro, could still earn some side cash from endorsements. 3rd stringers from SEC football teams could legit make enough money taking pictures with fans at public events to pay for anything they needed. And, it is your opinion that the athletes are coddled. It isn’t a fact or even a reasonable point for this discussion. They live in nice dorms and they get fed. They are also on the road all the time and miss tons of class and work more than most students do. And, more importantly, they bring in more money for the school than your average student. So they should get nicer things than the average student.
Further, the only real issue is enforcement and the effectiveness of that enforcement.
Where’s the harm?
I would say that the 3 men that will be going to prison would tell you that there is harm. I would think you would agree with this, as your opinion is that the FBI should have no right to prosecute someone based on rules an organization created themselves. That is harm then, as you yourself have stated. There is harm for players who get injured in college when they could have made hundreds of thousands of dollars in endorsements during that span. There is harm for the families that really do live paycheck to paycheck and they have to choose between taking the fast cash and going pro now or letting a player develop over 4 years in school, while earning a degree.
Do you think KU has just been good because of tradition? NO. Other programs have great facilities, coaches and campuses and blah blah blah. Yet we have won 14 straight titles. That is a competitive imbalance, and the 9 other schools in our league are harmed by this.
There is plenty of harm.
The sport (CBB) makes millions, funds schools and other programs, educates millions over time – the issue always comes back to the discussion point of wanting to change the rules to pay players.
So, what happens if everyone just leaves the NCAA alone?
The sport makes hundreds of millions, first of all. Let’s not try to downplay this. If everyone were to leave the NCAA alone, we would still have players who could earn money at the expense of NO ONE other than the company endorsing them, not making that money. Or they will still do it behind closed doors and we will continue to have athletes with “surprise” commitments
What is the harm in letting players fetch endorsements? “It’s a slippery slope” is poor argument. It isn’t factually based whatsoever and is really just a lame way to dismiss the problem without actually giving it any kind of deep thought. Because once you start to think about it, you will realize that it would actually save the NCAA money to not have to investigate as many athletes, it would make their product better, and it would help them with their already poor PR. To top it off, and, this may blow your mind, MORE players might graduate leading to a better life for these guys down the road. MORE players will stay and develop and have longer pro careers. These are positives to letting players fetch endorsements. I’m looking for cons, but they are hard to find.
-
@HighEliteMajor So, you think kids couldn’t make money off their own names without a school affiliation? Luke Axtell, wasn’t it, who was not allowed to keep selling his CDs during the school year despite having his musical career independent of his basketball? Good thing the NCAA preserved the sanctity of college bb with this one.
You act as if rule changes by the NCAA to allow kids to earn outside money would be horrible, but you have never explained why. The NCAA can change, and accommodate the desire. Why would that be so horrible?
Edit: http://m.kusports.com/news/2000/aug/22/kansas_axtell_unplugged/?templates=mobile
-
@mayjay It’s the same simplistic reasons. First, NCAA basketball has been around a long time and it has worked. Entertaining, best sport, just a terrific product. It creates high revenue and it supports other sports. We have a great program. Who wants to jeopardize that? Second, the dreaded slippery slope. One you go there, the cries will be to go further. Look at this thread. It always is. And third, every time you open up an avenue for compensation, you create another path that can corrupt.
I continue to be puzzled by this desire change rules for rare kid that wants to sell CDs, or whatever. Life is about choices. Think of it as joining the Marines. A choice. A commitment. And giving up certain freedoms. But a choice.
That ain’t good enough, I’m sure.
This is very similar to a non-compete agreement. Don’t like it, don’t sign.
-
What I don’t think people realize is that, because of social media, there is an entirely new market for advertising. It gives someone with D-level fame the ability to make a significant amount of money through their “likeness.” This wasn’t an issue when the rules were written because this avenue never existed. Rules need to change when they no longer make sense.
If Doke could make extra money from growing his instagram following by posting awesome dunks and while wearing Nike shoes, and get his mom out of Africa, AND still stay in college and develop like he needs to, that would be a win-win-win.
If Vick could get sponsored by a nose ring company and stay and make money to send to his child, that would be a great thing.
If Devonte could get sponsored by a bandana company (he wears a lot of them), and send money to his mother who had him at 14, I would consider that a win.
If a middle-class kid with no issues at home could get paid and start saving for retirement now, I would consider that a win.
The cons I see of this are the same cons that are happening right now in the black market that the NCAA themselves created. People will ALWAYS try to steer players to a program. So this would change absolutely nothing, other than it would put money in the pockets of athletes during some of the few years they have the potential and fame to earn this money.
-
Side note, if a Marine had the instagram following that these kids have, he could still earn endorsement deals on the side. No rules against that.
-
20 years ago, a college players likeness wasn’t worth what it is today. It was worth training facilities, room and board, food, and tuition.
Right now, we are at the cusp of it no longer being that. Both Alabama QBs have 190k followers and could easily earn $10k with a single post.
Lamar Jackson has over 500k followers and could demand $20k with a single post. The money is there. The market is there. And it simply wasn’t there when the rule was written. It requires much more of a proactive approach than “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.”
-
You are making it sound worse than it is. Axtell was able to sell his product at any time but he could market/endorse his product at any time other than the school year when he was playing for KU since he would benefit from his KU exposure.
I saw posts above that say that if we take the elite players from college basketball Division I it would collapse. I will guess that the assumption is that every player in Division I is elite which really is absurd. There are over 5,000 players in Division I and there is not enough jobs for all of them to play professional basketball. The number of elite players is the ones that could make a career playing professionally and that is just a small percentage, about 30-40 that are drafted every year and another 50-70 that would play either in the G League or overseas; this is less than 2% of Division I players and yes, the sport would miss some of the more talented individual players but the overall level would actually be better since more teams would have experienced players rather than OADs, much like Villanova this past season.
The premise that college players are not compensated is ridiculous. I have been doing research with my grandson on what scholarships at major/elite schools cover and even the best academic scholarships do not cover all expenses and even getting a full ride at a school like KU would require the student to come up with a few thousand $ every year. The only conference where a full ride means just that, i.e. covers everything, is the Ivy League which does not provide academic or athletics scholarships and financial aid is based uniquely on financial need.
A few years ago the Wall Street Journal did a story on the actual value of a major sport scholarship at at major conference and the cost was around $50K per year. I would suspect that now, the benefit at a program like KU, UK or Duke with their new luxurious accommodations, elite training facilities and staff, academics support and monthly stipend, the values is close to $70K per year…not bad. If you look at the 20,000 or so students at KU and look at the value of financial aid provide to them, the top 13 recipients would be the 13 basketball player on scholarship; it really does not get any better than this.
Now, if players would be allowed to endorse products like Bilas suggests, wouldn’t this create a conflict of interest with the schools? How about if various KU players get contracts with Nike, Adidas, Under Armour, Converse and Reebok, which uniform would they wear? Would a Nike endorser refuse to wear the school endorsed Adidas gear? Would athletic apparel companies tell schools…we will no longer contract with you because we can go directly to the athletes and end college sports as we know it?
How much would student endorsers would really fetch considering the supply of endorsers is now huge, over 20,000 if you include football and other sports, and the demand small? Other than die hard fans, how many people ouside KU fans would recognize, say Devonté, without his KU uniform and how many people would buy something he endorses considering that most of the so called Twittter followers have little purchase power and their total net worth is the cell phone they use to follow him?
If I create a lineup of 20 individuals, how many of us would actually be able identify the 5 Villanova starters? How many KU fans could at this time correctly identify Grimes and Dotson? Let’s be honest, how many members of this forum can correctly identify more than 5 players in the KU football team? Maybe a handful and I am not one of them. Let’s face it, without the college affiliation which they could obviously not use, the desirability and appeal would be extremely limited and mostly localized. The law of unintended consequences would destroy college sports and for what? A couple of dozen athletes that cannot wait a year to get paid? I say let them go pro and leave college sports alone. When they choose to attend college they agree to follow the rules, if the arrangement is that bad the do not have to attend college, no one is forcing them to do it, they can always join the G League or one of the other pro or semi-pro leagues or play overseas…and they can take Bilas with them.
-
Let’s break down this response a little bit.
JayHawkFanToo said:
I saw posts above that say that if we take the elite players from college basketball Division I it would collapse. I will guess that the assumption is that every player in Division I is elite which really is absurd. There are over 5,000 players in Division I and there is not enough jobs for all of them to play professional basketball. The number of elite players is the ones that could make a career playing professionally and that is just a small percentage, about 30-40 that are drafted every year and another 50-70 that would play either in the G League or overseas; this is less than 2% of Division I players and yes, the sport would miss some of the more talented individual players but the overall level would actually be better since more teams would have experienced players rather than OADs, much like Villanova this past season.
Are you saying there would be no consequences if elite players quit coming to college? Let’s say the top 100 players each year quit coming to school. I would say that probably half of the Shoe company money goes with. That would reduce this sport down to near D2 levels. I agree, I don’t think it disappears. But it would lose a lot, a lot of money for the schools.
The premise that college players are not compensated is ridiculous. I have been doing research with my grandson on what scholarships at major/elite schools cover and even the best academic scholarships do not cover all expenses and even getting a full ride at a school like KU would require the student to come up with a few thousand $ every year. The only conference where a full ride means just that, i.e. covers everything, is the Ivy League which does not provide academic or athletics scholarships and financial aid is based uniquely on financial need.
A few years ago the Wall Street Journal did a story on the actual value of a major sport scholarship at at major conference and the cost was around $50K per year. I would suspect that now, the benefit at a program like KU, UK or Duke with their new luxurious accommodations, elite training facilities and staff, academics support and monthly stipend, the values is close to $70K per year…not bad. If you look at the 20,000 or so students at KU and look at the value of financial aid provide to them, the top 13 recipients would be the 13 basketball player on scholarship; it really does not get any better than this.
No argument they are compensated. It is Compensated FAIRLY that is the argument.
Now, if players would be allowed to endorse products like Bilas suggests, wouldn’t this create a conflict of interest with the schools? How about if various KU players get contracts with Nike, Adidas, Under Armour, Converse and Reebok, which uniform would they wear? Would a Nike endorser refuse to wear the school endorsed Adidas gear? Would athletic apparel companies tell schools…we will no longer contract with you because we can go directly to the athletes and end college sports as we know it?
Nope it sure wouldn’t. NFL players who these same companies endorse all wear Nike uniforms. Nike just paid a crap ton to be the official NFL and NBA jersey. So, no, these companies will still sponsor school AND sponsor athletes.
How much would student endorsers would really fetch considering the supply of endorsers is now huge, over 20,000 if you include football and other sports, and the demand small? Other than die hard fans, how many people ouside KU fans would recognize, say Devonté, without his KU uniform and how many people would buy something he endorses considering that most of the so called Twittter followers have little purchase power and their total net worth is the cell phone they use to follow him?
Exactly! There are a ton of athletes, and not every one of them would get paid. Why? Because the market would set how much they made. That is the beauty of it. It wouldn’t effect 97% of athletes most likely.
If I create a lineup of 20 individuals, how many of us would actually be able identify the 5 Villanova starters? How many KU fans could at this time correctly identify Grimes and Dotson?
33k followers for Grimes and 31k for Dotson. No chance those are all KU fans. So did KU build their following or did they? Haven’t even played a game here yet.
Let’s be honest, how many members of this forum can correctly identify more than 5 players in the KU football team? Maybe a handful and I am not one of them. Let’s face it, without the college affiliation which they could obviously not use, the desirability and appeal would be extremely limited and mostly localized. The law of unintended consequences would destroy college sports and for what? A couple of dozen athletes that cannot wait a year to get paid?
This is a purely ignorant take and you are using it as support. If you don’t know how much money these guys could make, just don’t say anything or try to use it as support. Endorsers would be LINING UP to get these kids. College kids have more buying power than you think. Far more buying power than you think. Especially when you consider that the people following the players are the EXACT market for whoever would want to endorse the player. It would be almost impossible to find a better way to spend advertising dollars these days. I broke down above how much some players could fetch. $5K for one post isn’t chump change. One post a month and they are earning $60k. Some of them way more. Some way less. But to assume they have to have national level exposure just to make any money doing this means you have NO IDEA what you are talking about on this subject. None at all.
I say let them go pro and leave college sports alone. When they choose to attend college they agree to follow the rules, if the arrangement is that bad the do not have to attend college, no one is forcing them to do it, they can always join the G League or one of the other pro or semi-pro leagues or play overseas…and they can take Bilas with them.
This take always gets me because what we are proposing wouldn’t cost you, the university or the NCAA another dollar. And, according to you, it would only have minimal effect anyways as most athletes aren’t worth anything. So, if you let them fetch endorsements, and basically no student athlete could because there is no market for them, how would it effect a single thing?
I also want to say one more thing. You completely talked out of both sides of your mouth in your argument. In this same post, you argued that this could “end college sports as we know it,” College Sports are too big to go away, AND that this would effect such a small number that would even be able to fetch endorsements. Which is it? Is this so minimal of an impact that changing the rule wouldn’t even hardly be noticed, OR would it completely change college sports?
-
@JayHawkFanToo Sometimes you nail it. This is one of those times. Everyone knows that it is the universities and the brand and the venues and loyalty that drive college sports. It is undeniable.
-
@HighEliteMajor and @JayHawkFanToo
Both of you are speaking from the perspective of alumni. But most of the “fan base” of college athletics is non-alumni.
There is loyalty to particular schools because it was your school. But for individuals that are not alums, that is not the draw. @Kcmatt7 makes a great point about reducing things to D2 levels. For most D2 schools, their “fan base” is basically limited to alumni and local fans in the community where the school is located. These schools are very regional in that respect. For big time college athletics, the draw is not limited to regional draws. If that were the case, KU is in trouble because Kansas is not a populous state.
Talent level matters because the quality of play is what makes things interesting and exciting to the non-alum fans.
-
People in positions of power, authority, or influence are rarely so naive to not know what muck might be around them, and how to distance themselves (legally) from the muck. This is probably more true with politicians than basketball coaches, but I would be surprised if Bell Self hadn’t at least heard rumors about improprietary benefits given to his team at least once in the last ten years. If there was something of legal implication, Self would deal with it appropriately, but not knowing anything seems too naive n’est ce pas?
-
To me, the issue isn’t about who drives the market or how much value the athletes have. The money is there. Clearly. A few are even getting that money now. Some are even getting money to try and push them to schools they don’t even go to. I think the argument is, do we want this money to be forced to traverse back channels and be under the table to avoid breaking rules and even maybe end up breaking LAWS, or would it be better for the athletes if some of the rules were opened up to allow the money that is ALREADY flowing to them, to do so on the up and up. If the kids don’t have value, they wouldn’t be getting paid. They ARE getting paid already. And now the FB freaking I is involved in college sports simply because the NCAA is trying to control the flow of money to its players. I’d much rather open up some opportunities for athletes to make a little money, than force them to take weird wire transfers or find envelopes in mailboxes or whatever.
-
OH, THE HORROR! THE ABSOLUTE HORROR! if we let kids appear at a car dealer and sign autographs…or if they can make a cd with their picture on it and promote it like anyone else…or get free tattoos…or if Devonte and Sherron or Nick could have gotten a portion of the money that has been rolling in due to the thousands of #4 jerseys KU has sold…or if the NCAA said, “Hey, why not clean up the sport by letting legal earnings also be ok by our rules?”
Yes, it would end college basketball. Just like it did the Olympics, where Suzy Chaffee had to wait until she became a pro (and no longer eligible for the Games) before endorsing Chapstick–although the Olympians now are allowed to make millions. Oh wait, I think the games have survived despite Avery & Co.'s decades long handwringing and predictions of doom, gloom, andvthe end of civilization as we know.
-
I’m afraid our Crimson and Blue tinted glasses are skewing the conversation. Yes most of the KU players can and eventually will get paid for play/ their likeness. However if that is allowed how does St. Mary’s School for the Blind compete? They obviously can’t offer the same exposure/compensation. As it is KU has a huge recruiting advantage because of the national exposure and expectations, but give the players pay for that exposure as well? Completely unfair. i.e. Marcus Garrett KU basketball player signs a $200K deal to exclusively advertise for Hill Billy Juice drinks, would he command the same money if he played for St. Mary’s School for the blind? He’s the same player.
KU football is bad now. Imagine if OU could openly pay players. They have 4 deep guys better than KU starters already. But it’s the same deal - be the 3 deep guy getting paid on OU’s bench or play for free for KU? It widens an already huge gap and competitiveness across the board will be hurt.
If you want paid forgo amature status and go pro- get paid, but lose the exposure and following that even a year in college will give you. I don’t watch much NBA, but I do follow all the old KU guys in the league. And as @KCmatt7 has pointed out some of these guys are picking up 100’s of thousands of followers due to their college exposure. Those 100’s of thousands of followers can be immediately turned into leverage when forming an advertising deal down the road as a pro.
-
What would happen if student athletes organized and walked out until they were given a fair compensation for entertaining the free world? What would the NCAA do if all student athletes started a movement? How much money would they lose before they made a decision? If I were in school I would get the latest 2019 mock draft for college basketball, football, and baseball. I would organize a shut down or walk out with about 500 of the best athletes in college sports and see how they like that? I am willing to bet the NCAA would cave! These kids should get paid if they are not allowed to enter the draft due to age requirements or restrictions from the NBA, MLB, or the NFL. The guys that are getting paid should not be on scholarship but should be allowed to use all 4 years of eligibility and pay their own way. Then if they chose to get their education before entering the draft they could. Kids like Vick could take care of his family and finish school. Its a win win for college sports and would keep most kids in school that were struggling to make ends meet. I believe it could improve the NCAA product and produce a higher graduation rate if it were executed properly. Just my opinion.
-
@Statmachine Replacement players are waiting in the wings. The NCAA is old, athletes are only effective while young. Who can wait longer? A rich organization or athletes that are yet to be paid?
-
@justanotherfan I agree on one piece … talent level matters. But the overall talent level is not as good, relatively speaking, as the 80s where you had the best players staying for four years. And CBB is booming. Talent level matters to a certain point. There is a point where D-1 would become less of a draw. But it isn’t near that now. Take the best 3 players off of every team, and you have the exact same draw and product (I believe).
Do you agree that competition is the best path?
@mayjay Your statement can be said for anything … meaning you can mock it with all caps, and then start a slide down a slippery slope. That slide down the slippery slope starts with simple things, ones that don’t seem to cause bigger issues. But the slide deepens.
Hey kid, come here. I’ll buy 1000 of your autographs for $20 each. Just go to Kentucky. Or I’ll pay you $200,000 if you’ll permit me to use your picture in selling my cars. It just so happens that I have a dealership in Columbia, so the deal is off if you don’t go to MU.
So, more and more rules, right? Rules that someone will always think is unreasonable and want to change.
It amazes me how little thought is given to this.
Why not permit a kid to wear Nike instead of Adidas? Why not permit a kid to advertise for the NRA? Or for Planned Parenthood? Where are the lines? Are the lines areas that will be polarizing? Why should schools be able to dictate what areas their preferences will have priority?
Of course, the Olympics has zero to do with CBB. Not the same business model. Not the same product. Not the same scope. Not near the same issues. An irrelevant comparison. Much like me suggesting that McDonalds should pay their entry level folks what Boeing pays their entry level folks. Totally different businesses, and with a much different focus and business model.
And you do know the Olympics are an abyss of irrelevance now, right? It is no longer an event. It is no longer near what it used to be. I’m not suggesting that there is one cause, there are many. But it ain’t near what it used to be. Just more an observation.
-
Kcmatt7 said:
Yes, by all means let’s break down your response a little bit.
Are you saying there would be no consequences if elite players quit coming to college? Let’s say the top 100 players each year quit coming to school. I would say that probably half of the Shoe company money goes with. That would reduce this sport down to near D2 levels. I agree, I don’t think it disappears. But it would lose a lot, a lot of money for the schools.
You are making two very far fetched assumption, one, that there is actually room for 100 players fresh out of HS to play pro basketball and two, that shoe companies would actually pay lots of money to all these kids who are largely unknown to the majority of the buying market. Believe it or not, the percentage of people with buying power do not follow HS or even college sports. The people like us that post in sports forums and follows college sports in detail is very small and no shoe company would really pay to a HS kid with no collevaffiliation large amounts of money for that small niche market.
Nope it sure wouldn’t. NFL players who these same companies endorse all wear Nike uniforms. Nike just paid a crap ton to be the official NFL and NBA jersey. So, no, these companies will still sponsor school AND sponsor athletes.
So, now you are equating proven NFL professional stars with HS or college kids?
Exactly! There are a ton of athletes, and not every one of them would get paid. Why? Because the market would set how much they made. That is the beauty of it. It wouldn’t effect 97% of athletes most likely.
…and yet you are willing to jeopardize the 97% of the athletes and the well being of the sport for the sake of 3% that cannot wait 9 months to get paid? Actually it would be much less than 3%. Realistically only the best of the best might be able to get some money and that is the top 20-30 players which is less than 1%. If these 20 or 30 top players skip college altogether, the change in college basketball would be nill and the level of play would actually be better since a quality senior (with very few exceptions) will usually outperform a OAD.
I said…
If I create a lineup of 20 individuals, how many of us would actually be able identify the 5 Villanova starters? How many KU fans could at this time correctly identify Grimes and Dotson?
And you answered…
33k followers for Grimes and 31k for Dotson. No chance those are all KU fans. So did KU build their following or did they? Haven’t even played a game here yet.
Cute but you did not answer my question. You have to consider that those 33,000 followers include fans from 20 or 30 schools that follow them with the unique objective of finding out where they will play college ball and once they decide on a school, 32,000 will lose interest and the rest will follow them primarily because of the association with KU.
I said…
Let’s be honest, how many members of this forum can correctly identify more than 5 players in the KU football team? Maybe a handful and I am not one of them. Let’s face it, without the college affiliation which they could obviously not use, the desirability and appeal would be extremely limited and mostly localized. The law of unintended consequences would destroy college sports and for what? A couple of dozen athletes that cannot wait a year to get paid?
And you answered…
This is a purely ignorant take and you are using it as support. If you don’t know how much money these guys could make, just don’t say anything or try to use it as support. Endorsers would be LINING UP to get these kids. College kids have more buying power than you think. Far more buying power than you think. Especially when you consider that the people following the players are the EXACT market for whoever would want to endorse the player. It would be almost impossible to find a better way to spend advertising dollars these days. I broke down above how much some players could fetch. $5K for one post isn’t chump change. One post a month and they are earning $60k. Some of them way more. Some way less. But to assume they have to have national level exposure just to make any money doing this means you have NO IDEA what you are talking about on this subject. None at all.
Which again did not answer my question and you are making projection with no basis in reality. Just because a kid has 50,000 followers it does not mean that if he endorses a product all 50,000 followers will buy the product and whatever audience they have is limited to KU fans in the same way that a Duke or Kentucky player would have zero appeal outside their own fan basis and the appeal is primarily due to school affiliation rather than the players themselves. If Davonte, arguably the most popular KU player last season makes a post endorsing, say 7-up, how many people are going to head to the store and buy 7-up because Devonte endorses it? Reality is that many college basketball fans know who Devonté is but a much smaller number (outside KU fans) could recognize him or care about what he says or sells any more than we KU fans would about something a Duke or Kentucky player has to say or sell. If Grimes and Dotson joined South West Iowa school of Fine Arts instead of KU would you follow them and more importantly would they have the exposure and visibility the will have at KU and would you buy something they endorse? I will guess the answer is no.
Under your scenario, we also start the slippery slope that @HighEliteMajor mentioned and the law of unintended consequences will follow. For example, what if Devonté (using him as an example, not saying that he would) decided to endorse a male enhancement product, a particular brand of condom, a porn website and also advocates for AIDS prevention by using protection, i.e. the brand he endorses…would this be acceptable while he is directly associated with KU? Who becomes the arbiter of what is acceptable or not acceptable? Remember the expression one man’s ceiling is another man’s floor. If one is and another not, would that be a restriction on the use of his likeness?
You and a handful of fans in this forum follow HS and college players at a very detailed level and are very familiar with them and you are part of a super small minority with that much knowledge (and I admire and respect that) and yet, you are assuming everybody has your level of knowledge or interest in the sport. Hate to break it out to you, most don’t.
This take always gets me because what we are proposing wouldn’t cost you, the university or the NCAA another dollar. And, according to you, it would only have minimal effect anyways as most athletes aren’t worth anything. So, if you let them fetch endorsements, and basically no student athlete could because there is no market for them, how would it effect a single thing?
I also want to say one more thing. You completely talked out of both sides of your mouth in your argument. In this same post, you argued that this could “end college sports as we know it,” College Sports are too big to go away, AND that this would effect such a small number that would even be able to fetch endorsements. Which is it? Is this so minimal of an impact that changing the rule wouldn’t even hardly be noticed, OR would it completely change college sports?
Silly me, all this time I thought you said that if the elite prospects skip college, Division I would be like Division 2. I simply posited the the two extremes, the one you though would happen and the one I did. My primary point, which in your haste to discredit my personal opinion, you obviously missed was…why change a system that has been working reasonably well for thousand of student athletes for the sake of of handful of athletes making a pit stop at a school? Why not have them skip college altogether and avoid the aggravation? The sport will not only survive but actually produce a better product.
-
I have a solution. If you accept an NCAA contract it’s good for four years. Each year you back out early is a finger off of your non-shooting hand. OAD bye-bye 3 fingers. He’s tough as nails, but I’m betting we’d have seen senior Paul Pierce under this mob model. Lol
-
dylans said:
@Statmachine Replacement players are waiting in the wings. The NCAA is old, athletes are only effective while young. Who can wait longer? A rich organization or athletes that are yet to be paid?
Its real simple the NCAA makes most of its money from a hand full of teams. These teams rely on the top recruits to preform. I will use Duke, UK, and Alabama as a reference. If you took those 3 schools top athletes off of their roster how much would these schools and the NCAA lose? UK and Duke for example. Their season depends on these kids suiting up next year. How much money do they lose if they have a really bad year? Not only the students but the Schools associated with these players would be putting pressure on the NCAA. Does the NCAA commissioner lose his job if they take a nose dive financially? The NCAA would have to take action.
-
@HighEliteMajor I’m surprised that someone who prides himself on crafting an argument and using logic is so quick to revert to slippery slope fallacies. Surely you know of the existence of the term but boldly use it in your own argument as if it’s a logical consequence instead of a well known fallacy. What ifs and slippery slopes are simplistic tactics to scare someone into inaction. You like the status quo, that’s fine. But if you are trying to make an argument for the status quo, do better.
Personally, if there are 100s of millions of dollars floating around, I’d rather distribute that money more evenly to the people I care about more, the players, instead of network execs, head coaches, and NCAA executives. Further, it appears, there is even MORE money out there the NCAA is trying to prevent others from making based on decades old rules based on decades older perceptions. I don’t have a perfect solution, but change is needed and can continue to be implemented to make the system better. If one change doesn’t work, or has unintended consequences, change it or close the loop hole or whatever. Progress and continual improvement is what sport is all about. Even the rules of basketball are in constant flux and rules are adjusted, abandoned, or changed nearly every year. The game survives and may even get better.
-
@JayHawkFanToo I’m sorry, but you know nothing about social media, much less advertising on it.
My numbers weren’t pulled out of the air.
“An Instagram user with 100,000 followers can command $5,000 for a post made in partnership with a company or brand.”
But continue to assume that nobody would pay thousands of these college athletes.
-
Here’s the thing, we don’t have to assume nobody would pay these athletes. They already are just secretly. We all knew it before, but it has been very loudly confirmed recently.
The real question isn’t about whether or not these athletes can or should be paid; it’s would you rather the payments be open and legal or hidden and possibly illegal? I say possibly because methods of payment seems to be part of how the feds have gotten involved.
-
I think that the power 5 should step up and make their own paid league!
-
If a kid has 100k followers on Instagram and wants to advertise bottled butt toots then he or she should be able to capitalize on that!
-
@Statmachine Right? People talk about how great capitalism is and how free markets are so great, but then only for SOME people. These other people shouldn’t be allowed to participate because they can make all the money they want after they wait 9 months. Athletes are held to a completely different standard than the rest of the student body.
-
@benshawks08 What difference does it make if Gatorade wants to pay Wiggins a million to advertise? So remove his scholarship but not his remaining eligibility and let him play. As long as he meets the minimum requirements to be considered full time student and meets the grade requirements who gives a cats banana?
-
@Statmachine You have to be careful giving young black men that kind of money at that age. They might do weed or eat crack. It’s a slippery slope.
-
@Kcmatt7 It will be the end of the privileged elite making all the rules, and then the earth will spiral into the sun.
-
We have a very tenuous system balanced carefully on the backs of certain individuals. To upend this system would be a catastrophe (for those currently benefiting from it financially).
Great point. Or they might turn that into something that benefits everyone in their community (the horror). I know your comment was tongue in cheek. It made me laugh at work.
One of the things I respect most about Lebron James is that he used his immense talent not just to help himself and his family, but also his friends. Maverick Carter, James’ best friend, is a millionaire now. He runs a lot of James’ businesses. While Lebron himself is probably going to be a billionaire, he has helped several of his friends become millionaires. Rich Paul runs a sports agency and is probably worth $20M. Randy Mims also runs some of Lebron’s business interests and is a millionaire himself. That’s four friends that all became extremely wealthy even though only one was actually an elite athlete. While all were good HS athletes, only Lebron was ever going to the pros. But because James was able to capitalize on his talent financially, the other three were able to start and build their own businesses as well. Instead of one kid making it out of a run down area of Akron, three did, and another kid from east Cleveland made it as well. They started a marketing agency in 2006, when James otherwise would have been just leaving college. But since he was already a pro, James was signing a big extension in the NBA.
Lebron James has completely flipped everything. He skipped college. He got rich. He stayed out of trouble. He got his friends rich. They have built their own business/sports/media empire. And he did it all outside the usual channels. That’s what it means when an athlete has a chance to capitalize on their marketability from the beginning. Not one life changed. Not one family changed. Several. Dozens. Maybe hundreds before its all said and done. And that’s just directly. Who knows how many will indirectly benefit.
-
Great post as usual
-
Kcmatt7 said:
@Statmachine You have to be careful giving young black men that kind of money at that age. They might do weed or eat crack. It’s a slippery slope.
You mean like Michael Phelps? Oh wait he is not black!
-
@justanotherfan Great point about Lebron. I don’t want to get into it much and stir things up but I very much agree with you.
A great movie I watched not too long ago from the 70s called Being There touched on these subjects somewhat. Basically if you are white, wear a nice suit and speak in platitudes you can succeed in American politics, almost no matter how dumb you are…
-
Statmachine said:
Kcmatt7 said:
@Statmachine You have to be careful giving young black men that kind of money at that age. They might do weed or eat crack. It’s a slippery slope.
You mean like Michael Phelps? Oh wait he is not black!
Just making sure you understand he was joking.
-
I caught that. I am just joking around.
-
Also LOL at Michael Phelps.
