Trouble?
-
@dylans I don’t think you’re in the minority. I don’t think a player’s image without the uniform would be all that marketable so I’m not sure this would be that much of a windfall.
-
The ones that are marketable should go pro. “College” sports are done. Let them all go pro so in twenty years we can listen to the same media cry about all the ex-players with no money and no education.
-
@dylans @bcjayhawk Bingo. This is what I’ve been focused on (among other things) for quite some time. It is the jersey, the uniform, the school, the program, and everything that goes with it that makes CBB and CFB what it is. Otherwise, they’re A, AA and AAA baseball players (but for just a few). The colleges are the marketable product. THE PLAYERS ARE INTERCHANGEABLE AT THIS LEVEL.
But we know what will happen. If they do this “marketing of their image”, it will be so unfair that the players can’t use the colleges’ images (logo, etc). They’ll complain about that.
Of course, it creates yet another massive enforcement headache and will change the college sports, lurching college sports further away from what we love.
-
The NCAA needs to set forth specific reasons and ways a player can earn extra money that may not have been permissable before. Letting a kid do an autograph signing somewhere and putting a cap on number of appearances, time, and price they can be there. Allowing players to auction off jersey’s and putting a cap on how much a player can make up front and putting the rest in a trust that can only be accessed once the player runs out of eligibility whether that’s because they turned pro or graduated. If they drop and do neither and have eligibility because of that, they can’t touch the money. Allowing EA Sports to make NCAA video games again and giving each player $500-1000 similar to a class action settlement. Make that moment be based off of projected sales.
Some of these ideas would need to be fleshed out more and given more specific details or tweaked, but these are simple ideas that cause a lot of issues for programs when they come to light that really should be changed by the NCAA.
-
@Texas-Hawk-10 If you’re going that route, you’re right. But everyone who supports this concept should really rethink it. More rules. More enforcement. Enforcement is much, much tougher as there are shades of grey – meaning as you move from nothing to something.
But really, the “why not” is easier than just more rules – the same folks that want this will always want more. Some simple, common sense rules as mentioned above won’t be good enough. It will never stop. WE KNOW THAT. The rules set by the NCAA will always be unjust to those with that mindset. “Look at what the NCAA brings in” will always be the mantra. Profiting off the athlete be continue to cause incessant whining (no matter how illogical). The revenue point will always be way too high for some, compared to what the athlete (student-athlete) receives.
Many folks want the CBB and CFB model destroyed. So it will never be enough.
The easiest and better thing to do is just say no. Nothing. Period. This is the gamble the NCAA needs to take. Nothing. Don’t come. Don’t play.
And guess what? They’ll still come. And they’ll still play.
-
The thing is, the market would be mostly local.
Other than Mahomes, Kelce and maybe a couple of others, how many Chiefs players would you recognize out of uniform? How many Royals other than Gordon, Perez and Merrifield? How many Sporting KC guys?
But there are pros in local ads all the time even though I guarantee most people wouldn’t recognize Sammy Watkins or Danny Duffy outside the KC area. This would allow them to advertise for the local car dealership or whatever. They could sign and sell autographs. That’s about it.
-
HighEliteMajor said:
@dylans @bcjayhawk Bingo. This is what I’ve been focused on (among other things) for quite some time. It is the jersey, the uniform, the school, the program, and everything that goes with it that makes CBB and CFB what it is. Otherwise, they’re A, AA and AAA baseball players (but for just a few). The colleges are the marketable product. THE PLAYERS ARE INTERCHANGEABLE AT THIS LEVEL.
But we know what will happen. If they do this “marketing of their image”, it will be so unfair that the players can’t use the colleges’ images (logo, etc). They’ll complain about that.
Of course, it creates yet another massive enforcement headache and will change the college sports, lurching college sports further away from what we love.
I’ll buy in to the point that the college has a brand, but I have to disagree with suggestion that the players are interchangeable. If they were interchangeable, then why do we get so worked up about recruits? I don’t think it’s a common belief that Zion was interchangeable nor unrecognizable.
There are plenty of players that fans would recognize in plain clothes when they were playing at KU – Frank Mason, Andrew Wiggins are the most obvious… and I think Doke would be pretty easy to recognize in pretty much any crowded room.
Also, I think every Iowa State fan could have recognized Elijah Johnson during his senior year.
-
@bskeet I think they are totally interchangeable. They have to be. Every 5 years it’s total turnover. Every year has a new 1 recruit. Every year has 40-50 guys getting drafted. Every year a kid gets hyped up. Every 5-10 years you get a Zion/Wiggins/LeBron level of hype. Every year KU has a nearly full roster after losing guys.
-
I don’t watch much sports avidly anymore, but quiz me on 90s baseball players and I’m ok. I don’t watch much NBA, but of the nearly 500 nba players I could recognize around 40 guys. Of the 4500 ncaa basketball players I’d be lucky to recognize 5 non-KU players. NFL guys are kinda screwed playing behind a helmet. Names sure, faces no way. Same for ncaa football. I’d recognize one guy this season (so far) - no KU players.
That’s another thing about ncaa basketball. The coaches are the most recognizable and stable things. Therefore the most marketable. I don’t think this creates much legit income (I may be wrong) but I do think it creates an oversight nightmare. It’s already pretty easy to pay recruits (unless you’re a dumbass adidas guy) this will be the Wild West. I’m kinda excited, KU is one of the big boys, it’s the little guys that will be absolutely screwed. I mean the competitive imbalance will be ridiculous. 14 in a row will be a short streak under those rules. Bring it!
-
dylans said:
@bskeet I think they are totally interchangeable. They have to be. Every 5 years it’s total turnover. Every year has a new 1 recruit. Every year has 40-50 guys getting drafted. Every year a kid gets hyped up. Every 5-10 years you get a Zion/Wiggins/LeBron level of hype. Every year KU has a nearly full roster after losing guys.
Right. It’s proven already that the parts are interchangeable. That’s the system as it exists. Constant roster turnover.
@BSkeet I don’t suggest players are unrecognizable, just interchangeable. From Collins, to TT, to EJ, to Tharpe, to Mason, to Graham, to Dotson. 10 seasons, seven PGs. There are better players in the D-league. But no packed arenas, no massive team gear sales, no big TV contracts, no sports center highlights, etc.
-
Just popping in to say, yes, college bb players ARE interchangeable over a period of years. But they are individuals well recognized by their fan bases in the one to four years they attend their schools. Those are the years available.
Whether another athlete comes along to replace or even exceed them after they leave, is irrelevant to the years in which they could earn a little money.
-
@HighEliteMajor The issue at hand and why people are pushing for rules changes are because the NCAA either cannot or will not enforce their own rules fairly.
Having the NCAA meet with representatives from every level of member schools from P5, mid major conferences, FCS, D2, and D3 schools to come up with a system that the NCAA is capable of enforcing fairly across the board is something that needs to happen.
The fact is the current system is broken and your suggestion to do nothing doesn’t fix a broken system. It doesn’t have to be radical changes, but there do need to be changes made so the NCAA can enforce their rules.
-
Texas Hawk 10 said:
@HighEliteMajor The issue at hand and why people are pushing for rules changes are because the NCAA either cannot or will not enforce their own rules fairly.
Having the NCAA meet with representatives from every level of member schools from P5, mid major conferences, FCS, D2, and D3 schools to come up with a system that the NCAA is capable of enforcing fairly across the board is something that needs to happen.
The fact is the current system is broken and your suggestion to do nothing doesn’t fix a broken system. It doesn’t have to be radical changes, but there do need to be changes made so the NCAA can enforce their rules.
No, that’s not “why.” The reason why is some folks want athletes to be paid. That is the constant drum beat.
My suggestion to do nothing relates to the idiotic path of compensation and permitting players to market themselves. The players deserve nothing, zero, beyond their scholarship and related benefits. This is different than the issue of enforcement (other than it will create more of an enforcement nightmare).
You switched topics. Your first post, the one I replied to, was related to permitting players to market themselves. Your post said nothing about “enforcement.” You then, in your response to my reply here, get into the claim that the NCAA doesn’t enforce their rules fairly.
And of course we break the rules, lie about it, and we of course need to revamp enforcement (because we’re targeted). How about we run a clean program?
-
I couldn’t agree more then with California for what they are doing. - It’s about time, no one is saying paying these kids any kind of insane amount is what it’s about , but why shouldn’t they be paid SOMETHING? - No I don’t want to hear any lame excuse WELL they’re getting a free ride - -take that somewhere else, your not convincing me that a Scholarship comes even remotely close to what the Universities make off these kids - I call Bull shit on that. - so don’t go there
Why shouldn’t they be paid something? - I mean this is their future , this is a job to them just like all the upper crust zoot suits - -stuffed shirts - those get paid quite nicely for a job - - THIS is these kids future , they are playing for their future/possible job - -every time they step on the court - it’s an interview for possible future employment - -it’s not all just fun and games for these guys.
They go out they play hard -just like people or most work hard trying to make a living - -these guys are trying to make a living in the future - -Why shouldn’t they be paid as it says to earn a wage while they are in School that’s fair to the amount of profit that the Universities make of them - - -or again like it says this becomes and equality issue why can’t they get something - -some kind of money, Hell your Coach’s making their annual Salary and then on top of that goes out and does numerous endorsements and makes even MORE money on top of that - - but that’s ok right? - - bullshit - the hell it is. - -California - - - Good for you - -about time someone does something
-
-
This discussion (nationally) seems to be more emotional and political than logical.
So what’s that b-ball scholarship worth? - roughly 20k+ per year in tuition, books, room and board. - 5k+ in stipends - free apparel - free marketing of the player as well. What does the money generated go to? Not the b-ball players, but the minor sports - tennis, baseball, lacrosse, soccer, anything women’s sports. Every one of these loses money and is supported by football and basketball, not to mention the money losing women’s programs have to exist due to title 9 stuff; you can’t cut them. You’ve got to have 50+ women’s scholarships (and programs and associated expenses) to balance out the football scholarships.
Letting kids earn from their likeness will not increase school debt, but will be an oversight nightmare. It will widen the gap between the haves and the have nots. (I’m kinda ok with this unfair advantage, KU is in the have group). It’ll also make the disparity between men’s and women’s sports even more apparent.
-
I’m so through with all this political crap - I don’t even watch the news because I can’t stand politics (all bad), news (all bad), weather - 90% bad with a 50% chance of intermittent good (i know the math doesn’t work out - that’s true weather math) and now sports. Used to be you could watch sports and be entertained. See some great games, watch some incredible highlights - now it’s just all CRAP.
My boat and fishing poles will be getting a much greater workout in the years to come.
-
mayjay said:
Just popping in to say, yes, college bb players ARE interchangeable over a period of years. But they are individuals well recognized by their fan bases in the one to four years they attend their schools. Those are the years available.
Whether another athlete comes along to replace or even exceed them after they leave, is irrelevant to the years in which they could earn a little money.
Right- I go with this definition of interchangeable… You captured my thinking better than I did…
-
By that definition we are all special and unique like a snowflake. It also makes us all the same and completely interchangeable.
If none of the former KU players came to Kansas, I’d remember those who did in their place. The coaches make the programs not the players.
-
I’m no expert on the pros and cons of allowing students to profit from their image and likeness, but one of the more compelling arguments I’ve heard is that every citizen has this right, and that the NCAA’s rule is stripping a group of people from this basic right.
I’ve heard two very impassioned arguments about how this will 1) transform women athletes and bring much greater notoriety to them, and 2) destroy women’s athletics and undo title IX… Essentially completely opposite projections on the impact. My conclusion: No one can predict what the benefits and consequences of this will really be.
My other conclusion as to why the NCAA is really fighting this: Status quo and the ability to better control what is known.
-
Players are not interchangeable.
They do add value.
What they should be compensated is a scholarship that offers them the tools and platform to succeed. That is payment enough from the schools. I can agree to that.
I also believe they should have the ability to go profit off of their likeness.
Yes, the schools brand means a ton. But the brand is also effected by the players playing for that school. It is silly to think otherwise. How much goodwill did the VCU brand gain from going to the Final Four? How about George Mason? Wichita State? Wichita State is now in a new conference making significantly more money because of Baker, VanVleet and Early. Those guys were freaking rockstars in Wichita, KS. They would have made a pretty penny, and it would have only been a fraction of what they gifted to the university.
The 2007 Orange Bowl team, how much extra value did they create over a what used to be a somewhat typical 5-7 KU team? Millions I’d guess.
What happens to the endowment after KU makes a FF? What happens to the attendance? They increase. Which is adding value to the university.
The flip side of that is the cost of having a crappy team. Look how hard it was for KU to raise money for the football program. Look at Arkansas University attendance numbers now that they’ve sucked for so many years at football. What is the brand damage to Arkansas right now? KU Football’s brand has been demolished. Making it harder to get good players, players who would add value. How you can say players are interchangeable knowing the cost vs the gain of a good team?
Of course the players would not be marketable without the school’s brand giving them the platform to become marketable. I do understand this. But the school’s brand suffers as well without having quality players. It does work both ways. This is very, very evident.
This is why I believe that players should be allowed to profit off of their likeness. Those who would make money are the ones who add value over those who truly are “interchangeable.” Would you want their autograph if they played for the Kansas City Jay Birds? No. But you also wouldn’t be wasting your time watching if KU was consistently terrible. You wouldn’t be paying for Matt Kleinman’s autograph, but I literally have paid for a signed Brandon Rush basketball that is sitting right next to me as I type this.
Players simply are not interchangeable. I do agree that Coaches are very important. But Nick Saban is not going to a National Championship with KU’s roster. And Les Miles could probably get to the playoffs with a roster like Alabama’s. That gap in talent is player added value. That gap is worth tens of millions of dollars a season. That gap is what helps to create or destroy brand value.
Realizing this, I find it to be very, very clear that players are worth far more than just what their current “earnings” are. Allowing them to go cash in on some of that value, while they have it (and yes that is partially due to using the school’s brand), seems like the right thing to do in my eyes. Limiting their income in the name of “fairness” does not appear to be working, considering the results of Basketball, Baseball, Football, Soccer, Volleyball, Hockey, Track, Wrestling and basically all NCAA sports. There just simply are schools that have advantages already. Period. Whether it be geography, amenities, population, donors wealth etc.I look at how in almost every sport, 5-10 programs essentially dominate, and I just think that there is no way it can get any worse than it is now. We will see Bama and Clemson in the playoffs again against either OU, OSU, Notre Dame, Georgia, or Texas. Just like we basically have the past 20 years. The favorites to win the NCAA basketball Championship are KU, MSU, UK and Duke. Just like every other season.
If there was tangible proof that limiting players to just their scholarship created a level playing field, you could convince me. But there is absolutely no evidence of that being the case. Bigger or more prestigious schools just simply are more attractive than smaller ones. It has always been the case and it will continue to be the case. Even if you limited athletic department budgets and coach salaries, you’d still have schools that have an advantage.
Players add value, and I cannot find one major reason why we should keep them from capturing it.
-
@Kcmatt7 “…5-7 KU team…”
Ah, I feel misty-eyed when anyone brings up those good old days…
-
@Kcmatt7 You said, “Players add value, and I cannot find one major reason why we should keep them from capturing it.”
One MAJOR reason - The players don’t own the NCAA or the colleges. That’s about as major as it gets. The same reason I can’t come and sleep in your house – you OWN it. But that doesn’t matter to you or others. You ignore the obvious, most important consideration in our economy. OWNERS MAKE RULES ON PRODUCTS THEY OWN. It doesn’t matter that the players don’t OWN the product to you. Your mindset continues to be, take what others have created. It’s the same mindset of those wanting to pay McDonald’s employees $15 an hour when anyone can do the job (ignoring the market value of the services). But more importantly, you and others (on a certain side of the political isle) devalue ownership of business, risk, investment, creation of product, etc. It’s as if because it has been created, it should be shared. Why is this continually ignored by posters? Because it is an undeniable yet inconvenient truth. Or, more easy, because life is unfair.
The market value of the players’ services is evidenced by no market for the players’ services that is better than what the NCAA/Colleges own (other than what we see – overseas, sub-leagues, etc.).
Folks won’t pay for inferior products that EXCEPT because of the ties to the schools I’ve mentioned.
It’s pretty obvious. You use the Kleinmann example. Right. If I were an autograph seeker, and I’m not, but I’d rather have Sherron Collins than Klienmann. This position of yours and others is related to making a major shift in rules nearly exclusively for those top tier guys. And, further, ignoring all the other sports – golf, tennis, rowing, etc. No one wants anything from them. So it’s the top tier.
You point to Alabama vs. KU. Ok, great. You take the top Power 5 program vs. perhaps a bottom 5 program. But how many other schools pack their stadiums regardless of product? But the macro product is not what I’m focused on.
The interchangeability is related to that particular school. Sure, I agree. Bama’s overall group of players are better than KU’s. And they add value to Bama vs. KU. Conceded.
But my point is that regardless of the individual identity of the player in the helmet, folks support the team. Now, that player has to be good or comparable, but assuming that fact, as we’ve seen at KU, we support them regardless of their identity BECAUSE they are a Jayhawk. This is really undeniable. As mentioned, Collins, TT, Tharpe, EJ, etc. Didn’t matter. (Yes, even Tharpe). That’s different than the overall product you cite. I’m focusing on this individual value, individual likeness stuff.
Another irrefutable point – the players’ individual likeness has little value without the benefit of that university connection. This is in direct contrast to other minor leagues. Those teams don’t create marketing value for the player to any real extent.
*Of course, the free market argument can be used to claim that schools should just bid on players, that such an arrangement is truly “free market.” That’s an entirely different animal and different debate. That’s professional sports to a certain degree (though even leagues like MLB where it’s free bidding, no cap, there are major rules as to when a team’s control of a player would end). There are legal arguments that could be made (they have been tried). But the NCAA model stands. It is an entity that can make its own rules for participation – much like McDonalds. Professional sports (NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL) owners, as a group, can make their own rules. The NCAA, though slightly different, is in the same boat. The NCAA can make their own rules for participation.
-
HighEliteMajor said:
Folks won’t pay for inferior products that EXCEPT because of the ties to the schools I’ve mentioned.
Exactly why minor league sports don’t make any money and why the WNBA depends on the NBA subsidies for survival.
-
Correct me if I’m wrong, but if I worked as a college intern on a project that made a company billions I’d still be paid under our internship arrangement even if I made the key breakthrough. I’d just be compensated down the road with sweet job offers!
-
@BigBad Dead-on correct. Women are clamoring in sports for equal pay without regard to the fact that in most every instance, their product does not generate the same revenue as men. But it is so unfair …
@Dylans Inescapable logic you offer there. I will certainly plagiarize in later discussions without any credit to my source. I was an unpaid intern, hated the idea of being unpaid (not looking big picture), but stuck with it based on some good advice, worked three part time jobs (like many others, and the internship paid off greatly in creating my career opportunity. But it was so unfair …
-
dylans said:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but if I worked as a college intern on a project that made a company billions I’d still be paid under our internship arrangement even if I made the key breakthrough. I’d just be compensated down the road with sweet job offers!
Say you were an intern for NASA and got them to the moon. Say that information was leaked publicly, and you became famous in your hometown. Just a Kansas boy that got us to the moon. The local diner offers you $1,000 to come shake hands and launch the new “Dylans Moon Pie” recently added to the menu.
NASA wouldn’t be preventing you from doing this.
-
@HighEliteMajor I’ve been of the opinion the NCAA has needed to overhaul their system since long before KU was ever under investigation. I shifted my discussion from the suggestions to tweaking the system to the system itself because of your response to my first post.
The NCAA created this mess long ago when they chose to turn a blind eye to rumors of players getting paid in both football and basketball instead of investigating and shutting down anything they found. They hammer a program about once a decade to keep up appearances of being in control when the reality is the NCAA lost control of amateurism long ago in college athletics. What the NCAA did isn’t much different than MLB turning a blind eye to steroid abuse in the 80’s and 90’s and then essentially black listing players who took advantage of the system in place. The biggest difference between MLB and the NCAA in this case though is that MLB had the ability to enforce their own rules and began testing for steroids and punishing those found guilty of taking steroids. The NCAA doesn’t have the resources to enforce their own rules evenly so they still turn a blind eye to a lot of stuff worthy of investigating.
This is why I’m an advocate for the NCAA to get together with schools from different levels of competition from the P5 schools all the way down to D3 programs and work with those schools to create a set of rules the NCAA can enforce at all levels. That also likely means the NCAA is going to give ground on players profiting from their likeness in some ways.
I’m not in the camp of saying someone like Zion should be able to sign a multi-million dollar shoe contract in college. Letting him auction off the shoe he blew out against UNC would get decent money. Someone like Zion would be in minority of actually being able to make life changing money as a college athlete. Most players would make a few hundred or so a year because of their relative obscurity to most fans.
I don’t think a player should be able to sign endorsement deals and make money that way, but if someone is a budding music artist, let them make money off their music like any other student could do. The NCAA needs to be willing to work with their member schools to create a system that is agreed upon and enforceable. That means both sides would have to compromise on issues in order to reach that agreement. What would make the most impact at that point and determine if the new system would be effective is that NCAA would have to enforce those new rules fairly across the board from powerhouse programs all the way to the worst D3 programs.
-
HighEliteMajor said:
@Kcmatt7 You said, “Players add value, and I cannot find one major reason why we should keep them from capturing it.”
One MAJOR reason - The players don’t own the NCAA or the colleges. That’s about as major as it gets. The same reason I can’t come and sleep in your house – you OWN it. But that doesn’t matter to you or others. You ignore the obvious, most important consideration in our economy. OWNERS MAKE RULES ON PRODUCTS THEY OWN. It doesn’t matter that the players don’t OWN the product to you. Your mindset continues to be, take what others have created. It’s the same mindset of those wanting to pay McDonald’s employees $15 an hour when anyone can do the job (ignoring the market value of the services). But more importantly, you and others (on a certain side of the political isle) devalue ownership of business, risk, investment, creation of product, etc. It’s as if because it has been created, it should be shared. Why is this continually ignored by posters? Because it is an undeniable yet inconvenient truth. Or, more easy, because life is unfair.
The school owns the brand and infrastructure and provide an amazing platform. Conceded.
They do not own the player.
I have NEVER argued that the school should share their profit. Ever. Not once. The schools own their brands and their infrastructure.
But the players are not products. They are participants just like anyone else who goes to work. Once you do your job, your time is then yours.
So, in their own free time, they should not be prevented from earning other income providing it is legal (not throwing games, or that sort of criminal behavior). Any other job on the planet would allow you to do this so long as you are performing your duties, there is no clear conflict of interest, and you don’t negatively effect the company’s image (Doing an advertisement for a Porn Company. Illicit Tweets. Etc).
There is very little risk here for the brands. If anything, it increases their exposure. It helps them grow the brand. It’s the same reason that Pro contracts have forced Media Time in all of them. The more access available the more it helps the brand. Do you think the Chiefs are worried about what commercial Pat Mahomes is going to do? No. they’re pumped he’s on TV in a Chiefs uniform 5 commercials in a row.
If the NCAA wasn’t against this, the schools would not care. I guarantee it. You know how I know? Because the other 30,000 kids that go to school there are free to do what they want. Because they don’t have academic scholarship winners sign anything that says they can’t make any money on the side without the school’s consent.
-
HighEliteMajor said:
@Kcmatt7 You said, “Players add value, and I cannot find one major reason why we should keep them from capturing it.”
One MAJOR reason - The players don’t own the NCAA or the colleges. That’s about as major as it gets. The same reason I can’t come and sleep in your house – you OWN it. But that doesn’t matter to you or others. You ignore the obvious, most important consideration in our economy. OWNERS MAKE RULES ON PRODUCTS THEY OWN. It doesn’t matter that the players don’t OWN the product to you. Your mindset continues to be, take what others have created. It’s the same mindset of those wanting to pay McDonald’s employees $15 an hour when anyone can do the job (ignoring the market value of the services). But more importantly, you and others (on a certain side of the political isle) devalue ownership of business, risk, investment, creation of product, etc. It’s as if because it has been created, it should be shared. Why is this continually ignored by posters? Because it is an undeniable yet inconvenient truth. Or, more easy, because life is unfair.
The market value of the players’ services is evidenced by no market for the players’ services that is better than what the NCAA/Colleges own (other than what we see – overseas, sub-leagues, etc.).
Folks won’t pay for inferior products that EXCEPT because of the ties to the schools I’ve mentioned.
It’s pretty obvious. You use the Kleinmann example. Right. If I were an autograph seeker, and I’m not, but I’d rather have Sherron Collins than Klienmann. This position of yours and others is related to making a major shift in rules nearly exclusively for those top tier guys. And, further, ignoring all the other sports – golf, tennis, rowing, etc. No one wants anything from them. So it’s the top tier.
You point to Alabama vs. KU. Ok, great. You take the top Power 5 program vs. perhaps a bottom 5 program. But how many other schools pack their stadiums regardless of product? But the macro product is not what I’m focused on.
The interchangeability is related to that particular school. Sure, I agree. Bama’s overall group of players are better than KU’s. And they add value to Bama vs. KU. Conceded.
But my point is that regardless of the individual identity of the player in the helmet, folks support the team. Now, that player has to be good or comparable, but assuming that fact, as we’ve seen at KU, we support them regardless of their identity BECAUSE they are a Jayhawk. This is really undeniable. As mentioned, Collins, TT, Tharpe, EJ, etc. Didn’t matter. (Yes, even Tharpe). That’s different than the overall product you cite. I’m focusing on this individual value, individual likeness stuff.
Another irrefutable point – the players’ individual likeness has little value without the benefit of that university connection. This is in direct contrast to other minor leagues. Those teams don’t create marketing value for the player to any real extent.
*Of course, the free market argument can be used to claim that schools should just bid on players, that such an arrangement is truly “free market.” That’s an entirely different animal and different debate. That’s professional sports to a certain degree (though even leagues like MLB where it’s free bidding, no cap, there are major rules as to when a team’s control of a player would end). There are legal arguments that could be made (they have been tried). But the NCAA model stands. It is an entity that can make its own rules for participation – much like McDonalds. Professional sports (NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL) owners, as a group, can make their own rules. The NCAA, though slightly different, is in the same boat. The NCAA can make their own rules for participation.
And the NCAA doesn’t own the players - - that would be called slavery. - -if you think the NCAA OWNS these kids - - I feel sorry for you - -people owning people? - - those days are long gone - - Thank GOD. - Again why should it be the privlege of the NCAA to make money off these kids and not Kids be able to make money to live? -Again just like anyone else this is a job to these kids - - or a future job - -last time I checked people get paid to work/jobs - these kids should be no different.
every time they step on the court they are interviewing for their upcoming life/job - -they don’t produce/ they don’t make the big stage - - - more on the line then just a game for them. - -
These kids entertain us when they play , you tell me where else can you go watch a event and not have to pay to watch entertainment? - - Movies?/NOPE - - Play Golf/Nope Racing Event/ NOPE ? Baseball ?/NOPE - - Football? ? NOPE - -there is not any place you can go to watch entertainment - -that’s exactly what these kids are doing for us - - entertaining - so dam straight they should be paid - - You would have to pay to watch those same kids later if/when they make the NBA – this to them is a job just like any other Red Blooded American - whether you want to believe that or not - -you don’t want to then - -Not my Rodeo – Not my cowboy -just takes longer for some to grasp it that’s all pretty simple.
You bring up people and mind sets of like wanting to pay McDonalds employees 15 dollars an hour when anyone can do that ignoring market value - -well I can’t specifically speak for McDonald employees BUT I can speak for where I DID WORK same situation there.
I work in a huge food production plant - - - worked there for 10 yrs and then fell to disability because of my back - - this job had lot to do with my disability - -real shit job, but with my situation at the time took what I could get. - -started out there at 8.00 per hour - -and just like the other employees didn’t get squat - -lots of time through out the year had to work loads of overtime worked 24/7 shifts a lot- -finally right about the or my end worked as a MACHINE OPERATOR and still finally hit 10.00 per hour after 10 fricken years - -Now since I’ve been gone after years and years of employee complaints this factory raised their wages more standard up to date - - ya anyone pretty much could do our job too - but they wouldn’t because of wage. Are you saying that market value of jobs like I know dam well even though as you say ANYONE could do the work - -umm my market value was a lot more then the pay.
Now can you tell me - -can ANYONE do what these kids do? - - Not hardly sure you can dribble a ball maybe make a basket - but dam well know your skills is no where close to these guys - that’s why they are working towards their future as a NBA player entertain - -again IT’S A JOB - just also happens to be something they like to do - -AND ? - -there is no way the NCAA should be profiting of these kids entertainment - -just like anyone else that preforms for people - -they should be getting SOME KIND of money PERIOD
-
Kcmatt7 said:
dylans said:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but if I worked as a college intern on a project that made a company billions I’d still be paid under our internship arrangement even if I made the key breakthrough. I’d just be compensated down the road with sweet job offers!
Say you were an intern for NASA and got them to the moon. Say that information was leaked publicly, and you became famous in your hometown. Just a Kansas boy that got us to the moon. The local diner offers you $1,000 to come shake hands and launch the new “Dylans Moon Pie” recently added to the menu.
NASA wouldn’t be preventing you from doing this.
They could depending upon the deal you agreed too. And I would be more scared of NASA (likely a defense contract somewhere along the line) than the NCAA.
-
HEM is right. The schools own the NCAA and the NCAA, by virtue of the powers conferred upon it by its members, gets to make the rules. You want to be a member, you are subject to their rules. If you want to play for a member, you do so within the structure established under the rules.
But, HEM is also wrong. Rules can be changed. And many organizations have changed lots of their rules both by internal choice and in response to external pressure.
People and other institutions affected by the rules are pressuring the NCAA to change its rules. So far as I know, the NCAA has the right to consider the ideas being presented, and the right to change to meet the broader circumstances at play.
There is literally nothing written on a couple of stone tablets handed down as holy writ requiring the current system. The revered Rules of our favorite sport were handed down by Dr. Naismith. But good lord, if those rules hadn’t changed and adapted to new ideas, not one person in the country would ever watch or care about basketball.
All organizations change, adapt, and evolve, or they fail. Some die out anyway. That happens in business and in life.
-
mayjay said:
HEM is right. The schools own the NCAA and the NCAA, by virtue of the powers conferred upon it by its members, gets to make the rules. You want to be a member, you are subject to their rules. If you want to play for a member, you do so within the structure established under the rules.
But, HEM is also wrong. Rules can be changed. And many organizations have changed lots of their rules both by internal choice and in response to external pressure.
People and other institutions affected by the rules are pressuring the NCAA to change its rules. So far as I know, the NCAA has the right to consider the ideas being presented, and the right to change to meet the broader circumstances at play.
There is literally nothing written on a couple of stone tablets handed down as holy writ requiring the current system. The revered Rules of our favorite sport were handed down by Dr. Naismith. But good lord, if those rules hadn’t changed and adapted to new ideas, not one person in the country would ever watch or care about basketball.
All organizations change, adapt, and evolve, or they fail. Some die out anyway. That happens in business and in life.
@mayjay Regarding the “wrong” reference, I think you’ve use a red herring to simply make your point. I, of course, have never said that an organization’s rules couldn’t be changed. I’ve said they shouldn’t be changed.
We all agree that the NCAA can change its rules and there is nothing in stone.
The most important reason not to change – the why not – is because the schools, the owners, do not want to change. But an equally important reason “why not” to change is because it makes no sense, business-wise, to change.
The business model works. Athletes to fill the spots are plentiful, if certain athletes don’t want to participate other fill their spots (the irrefutable “interchangeable” argument), there is no mass walkout by the athletes, athletes (all scholarship athletes) by a large, large majority (say, 95% as a guess) are happy with their arrangement, those athletes are getting a free education which lasts a lifetime, the high level athletes have a massive stage to increase their marketability and draft status, and the business makes millions of dollars.
That’s the truth of the business end. And it is undeniable. But that doesn’t matter. It’s just ignored. Or lied about.
The sole reason that change might occur is because of political pressure based on the social justice garbage. Garbage that creates false narratives, focuses on a select few athletes, and ignores why the NCAA even exists. Quite simply, it’s a political perspective that hates business, hates owners, and hates the idea that a business can control it’s own rules (i.e., tell a worker what the worker can and can’t do). That is what is driving this.
Part of what drives that is constant reaction to the alleged plight of the inner city black athlete who doesn’t have pizza money. And, of course, we should all change everything so that athlete can make $2,000 in a local car commercial? I say “black” athlete because – the real truth – that’s all this is. This entire cause celeb is because of the perception and false narrative that the inner city black athlete is somehow being taken advantage of.
When the truth is, the athletic scholarship, by itself, may be the single greatest benefit that athlete has ever received – one that will change his/her life forever (white, black, or anywhere in between). The individual, the athlete, gets much more individually than the school gains from that individual (because that individual can be replaced by another). But to the individual that fills the spot, the scholarship is of exponential worth.
That’s what is lost. Not lost so much as purposefully ignored.
-
Slavery was a good business model too.
A business model that exploits human beings would be unconstitutional.
I think that may be the case with the NCAA. That’s a good reason to change the rules.
Of course, it could take a very long time for this to run through the courts and for the courts to determine for or against that fact.
-
By the way, I don’t know about the argument that this all about black athletes… I imagine that there are a lot of female athletes of all races that will have an opportunity to make money off their image and likeness.
Advertising likes healthy, attractive people for their products.
-
bskeet said:
Slavery was a good business model too.
A business model that exploits human beings would be unconstitutional.
I think that may be the case with the NCAA. That’s a good reason to change the rules.
Of course, it could take a very long time for this to run through the courts and for the courts to determine for or against that fact.
Don’t forget the early 1900s. Imagine where this country would be without all of that “Social Justice Garbage.”
I mean, what a bunch of f-ing p*ssies. Didn’t they know retirement is for the dead? Which, conveniently, came earlier back then because of all of the health care that didn’t exist and the sick days you didn’t get. At least 16 hour days led to major profits. Well, until the 1930s. But that obviously wasn’t because they let businesses do whatever they want and the economy collapsed under it’s own weight and the majority of the workforce was left unprotected and literally out on the streets.
We only had to enact major worker’s rights, pass enormous oversight legislation, develop the largest social program to date and partake in a war that saw 80M fatalities to come out of it. Really not a big deal. Certainly no lesson to be learned in any of that. No siree.
-
You know what’s the great thing about this NCAA investigation crap? It keeps us occupied to the point that we aren’t talking about the 82-3 pasting that’s coming this weekend.
-
Kinda funny how Jayhawks are involved again with liberating “slavery”.
-
nuleafjhawk said:
You know what’s the great thing about this NCAA investigation crap? It keeps us occupied to the point that we aren’t talking about the 82-3 pasting that’s coming this weekend.
I miss sports as a distraction from things that actually matter. This involving politics into sports is ruining it for me. I wouldn’t even watch football if it weren’t for Mahomes. I really hope LeBron and his ilk don’t ruin college basketball for me as well.
-
nuleafjhawk said:
You know what’s the great thing about this NCAA investigation crap? It keeps us occupied to the point that we aren’t talking about the 82-3 pasting that’s coming this weekend.
Ahh valid point - - ahhh yes valid point indeed. - - Hell I had ALMOST forgotten there was a pasting/ - -umm I mean a game this weekend to you brought it up - - thanks lmao
-
bskeet said:
Slavery was a good business model too.
A business model that exploits human beings would be unconstitutional.
I think that may be the case with the NCAA. That’s a good reason to change the rules.
Of course, it could take a very long time for this to run through the courts and for the courts to determine for or against that fact.
I’m sorry, but that is perhaps the most inflammatory and illogical comparison you could make. Straight from the NBA player handbook – at least you were able to do it in a complete sentence with enunciation of each word. It’s the type of stuff that makes your position look all that more ridiculous and makes my arguments look better.
From your point of view, if this is the reply, then the entire American workforce is exploited.
Of course, the inconvenient fact that your statement ignores is the matter of CHOICE. But you and many others that tend to occupy one side of the political isle avoid that truth.
-
Kcmatt7 said:
bskeet said:
Slavery was a good business model too.
A business model that exploits human beings would be unconstitutional.
I think that may be the case with the NCAA. That’s a good reason to change the rules.
Of course, it could take a very long time for this to run through the courts and for the courts to determine for or against that fact.
Don’t forget the early 1900s. Imagine where this country would be without all of that “Social Justice Garbage.”
I mean, what a bunch of f-ing p*ssies. Didn’t they know retirement is for the dead? Which, conveniently, came earlier back then because of all of the health care that didn’t exist and the sick days you didn’t get. At least 16 hour days led to major profits. Well, until the 1930s. But that obviously wasn’t because they let businesses do whatever they want and the economy collapsed under it’s own weight and the majority of the workforce was left unprotected and literally out on the streets.
We only had to enact major worker’s rights, pass enormous oversight legislation, develop the largest social program to date and partake in a war that saw 80M fatalities to come out of it. Really not a big deal. Certainly no lesson to be learned in any of that. No siree.
Which has nothing to do with the here and now – 2019. Not as silly of an analogy as the slavery tripe, but close.
I am all in and support the players uniting to change their conditions. To exercise their power and leverage. To refuse to play. To make demands. Now, I may disagree with their position, meaning the logic, etc. But I would completely support the exercise of that leverage/power. It’s why I support players’ right to hold out in pro sports. Or unions walking off the job. I may disagree with their flawed logic in some cases, but it’s their individual choice. It’s why I love the fact that Darius Bazely skipped college and signed with New Balance. It’s why I love that the recruit we were targeting went to play in Australia.
That tough word, CHOICE.
However, the economics of all of this doesn’t make that approach reasonable – as your example clearly did from decade’s past. But the players can band together, walk out, and exercise their power. Make the CHOICE to refuse to play. Not seeing that.
What we see are the external forces at play. Politics.
This issue is motivated by the social justice garbage. “Social justice” is much different now, than in the 1860s, 1930s, or 1960s. This is mostly about political power and really has nothing to do with the NCAA players (all sports, all skill levels).
-
bskeet said:
I’m no expert on the pros and cons of allowing students to profit from their image and likeness, but one of the more compelling arguments I’ve heard is that every citizen has this right, and that the NCAA’s rule is stripping a group of people from this basic right.
I’ve heard two very impassioned arguments about how this will 1) transform women athletes and bring much greater notoriety to them, and 2) destroy women’s athletics and undo title IX… Essentially completely opposite projections on the impact. My conclusion: No one can predict what the benefits and consequences of this will really be.
My other conclusion as to why the NCAA is really fighting this: Status quo and the ability to better control what is known.
I’m sorry, just saw this. Follow here – you’re right, we have the right to profit from our likeness. This is agreed. But you can agree to sign away your rights to profit from any number of activities. You can accept benefits with conditions, and that condition can include your likeness.
You could take a job today that prohibits me from doing a whole range of things based on your agreement. The employer could say you will not buy and sell houses on the side. The employer could say you will not sell photos of yourself. Take this job and you can’t do these things. Whatever. There is a very small list of exceptions.
I seriously do not know how this stuff doesn’t register.
-
@dylans Absolutley - i’m right there with you. I’ve always been a Chief’s fan and so far nobody’s screwed that up, but I really don’t give a crap about college football any more (cuz I’m a KU fan…sorrry) and I’m definitely not excited about basketball any more. I’ll watch it, but i won’t do it at the expense of missing out on other things if they come along. Like fishing, playing cards, mowing the yard, shoveling the drive, taking a nap.
-
@HighEliteMajor A bit too much heat thrown, in my opinion. I meant no disrespect, but feel pretty disrespected.
I don’t think you are open to another point of view.
SO BE IT.
AMEN.
-
HighEliteMajor said:
From your point of view, if this is the reply, then the entire American workforce is exploited.
That’s certainly not what I meant.
I’m open to an explanation of how my argument leads to this conclusion.
-
FWIW, the indentured servitude trope (or tripe) was not invented here.
NCAA must end its indentured servitude of college athletes
JAN 18, 2019
“In the discussion of college athlete rights, the focus has shifted over the last decade to primarily compensation for the athletes, without recognizing that the cartel deprives all college athletes of fundamental rights, like right to interstate travel, right of publicity, right of privacy, forced waiver of educational privacy rights under federal law, right to counsel, right to due process, right to private property, and so on,” said Richard Johnson, a lawyer who 10 years ago successfully sued the NCAA over its denial of college players’ using lawyers…
-
@bskeet Low heat. On your statement, “A business model that exploits human beings would be unconstitutional.” And my response, “From your point of view, if this is the reply, then the entire American workforce is exploited.” You equated college athletics to slavery. Again, unfathomable. But if you believe athletes are “exploited” (again, the entire realm of NCAA athletes, not just the Andrew Wiggins’ level), then a look around America and the labor folks do that help other get rich, I think would lead easily to my conclusion. Athletes are pampered in large part, get extra tutoring, great food, nice living arrangements, gear, they get to travel/see the country, built in social life, all why attending college (some view as positive) for free (or in lower sports, a good chunk free if a partial scholarship). Every “worker” is exploited to some degree. It’s the level of exploitation that is legally important. The level of exploitation here is really very minimal compared to what we easily could argue elsewhere. I don’t even think it qualifies because there are so many other choices.
The poor fellow that can only dig ditches, no education, three kids, bills, rent, nothing in the bank account, trying to support a family – and his boss, the excavation company owner, makes him work overtime, limited pay, tough work. Let’s get real.
I also understand that your slavery comment was not the first dive into that arena and that others have made similar suggestions, such as the “indentured servitude” link you’ve provided. The term “cartel” is something folks like Jay Bilas have latched onto. Of course, purposefully inflammatory, just like the slavery comments, to make folks think “drug cartel.” But a cartel is “an association of manufacturers or suppliers with the purpose of maintaining prices at a high level and restricting competition.” That is pretty benign, really. But cartels, in practice, engage in price fixing and they squeeze competition through aggressive and mostly illegal means (like killing and threats). Like the drug cartel.
As I’ve pointed out, the NCAA does nothing significant to restrict competition. I mentioned yesterday that they don’t engage in monopolistic activity like acquiring other sports entities (or one that could be directly applicable, using threats that they won’t rent arena space if arenas rent to other leagues). And they don’t have the purpose of “high prices.” In fact, their events are very reasonably priced in most every instance. Some even free like lower level events.
This type of usage of cartel is laughable, but it fits the script of certain folks that attempt to demonize as part of their argument. “What can we say that will grab attention and paint the other side as evil?” But it has no real basis in fact.
You suggest I don’t have an open mind. I’d suggest that at every turn, I’ve refuted quite directly most every point on the topic. I’m not saying that I’m absolutely right. But I’d say that I’ve chinked the armor of you and others’ arguments pretty significantly.
I’d offer that the reaction to support the compensation of players, whatever form (likeness, etc.) that run contrary to the NCAA rules, is driven by feelings of unfairness (in large part). When feelings enter the picture, folks throw out “slavery” in opinion. Something, again, inflammatory and plainly inapplicable.
I will also offer that the NCAA did not prohibit any possible player or family from consulting a lawyer prior to accepting/signing the Letter of Intent. The lawyer’s little statement ignores again the choice to enter the organization and play by that organization’s rules. There is an entire, big world outside of NCAA sports wherein you don’t have rules that govern you – like this crazy idea of paying for your own college expenses. This attorney throws out all this blather, but the reality is that the NCAA still stands.
-
-
HighEliteMajor said:
As I’ve pointed out, the NCAA does nothing significant to restrict competition. I mentioned yesterday that they don’t engage in monopolistic activity like acquiring other sports entities (or one that could be directly applicable, using threats that they won’t rent arena space if arenas rent to other leagues). And they don’t have the purpose of “high prices.” In fact, their events are very reasonably priced in most every instance. Some even free like lower level events.
They own a monopoly over the schools themselves. They have basically already acquired every single public 4-year university in the country.
The only competition that the NCAA has in the world of College Athletics is the NAIA, and that’s made entirely of private institutions. That is it. And the NCAA could buy them tomorrow if they wanted to.
Schools are no longer voluntarily NCAA members. In order to leave, a public institution would have to get approval from their board of regents. Which they never would get.
So the schools have no where to go, and the NCAA can make up whatever rules it wants, fines it wants, strip whatever wins, and the schools have nothing they can do about it.
Their business is derived completely from fans of member institutions, institutions that have nowhere to go. That is exactly what a monopoly is.
