Real issue is what happens within a position group when some are getting a heckuva lot more than others in that group.
SCOTUS ruling today went far beyond NIL for the near future of the "college model"
- Thread starter dtodd4475
- Start date
How in hell do you have a collegiate sport without some sort of governance group between the universities controlling how they all work together?
D1 Basketball is I think around 300 schools so I see no way a controlling entity will ever be allowed apparently so there goes March Madness. D1 Football is around 125 schools so same issue there. If the 65 P5 schools break away to form a mutually agreed upon central controlling group will that be allowed or will each conference need to be a separate entity which will be a complete shitshow.
D1 Basketball is I think around 300 schools so I see no way a controlling entity will ever be allowed apparently so there goes March Madness. D1 Football is around 125 schools so same issue there. If the 65 P5 schools break away to form a mutually agreed upon central controlling group will that be allowed or will each conference need to be a separate entity which will be a complete shitshow.
Same thing applies. Free market will determine their worth. If nothing else they can get a head start on some valuable life lessons. And if it bothers them that much, the healthcare and AI field are expanding at a fast rate.
Just so many what ifs I can come up with. Suppose the players form a union and they all refuse to play unless every player gets a check for 100k.
I tried to be clear: (you are correct in essence) To legally restrict the employees ability to garner wages you must:
1. Classify them as employees and comply with all the laws governing this classification
2. Allow them to unionize and give them a seat at the table.
3. Send a proposed collective bargaining agreement to the leadership of said union.
4. Consider the counter-proposal from the player's union
5. Negotiate a quid pro quo arrangement where they get some of what they want in exchange for the disputed elements of the proposed agreement.
6. Establish a method for airing and adjudicating inevitable disagreements based on implementation of said agreement.
7. Enforce the agreement without bias and standardize punishments for both sides if it is breached. (or, conversely, provide for discarding the agreement entirely for re-negotiation)
1. Classify them as employees and comply with all the laws governing this classification
2. Allow them to unionize and give them a seat at the table.
3. Send a proposed collective bargaining agreement to the leadership of said union.
4. Consider the counter-proposal from the player's union
5. Negotiate a quid pro quo arrangement where they get some of what they want in exchange for the disputed elements of the proposed agreement.
6. Establish a method for airing and adjudicating inevitable disagreements based on implementation of said agreement.
7. Enforce the agreement without bias and standardize punishments for both sides if it is breached. (or, conversely, provide for discarding the agreement entirely for re-negotiation)
Who is going to want to coach in this type of environment? Coaches will spend less time coaching and will be forced to deal with chemistry issues that will undoubtedly arise. I see a future of college sports with second rate coaching. Players attention will not be on the game and will instead be on their ability to generate income meaning a lower quality of play. The buy-in simply won't be there. There are a host of issues waiting in the wings. Should make college sports intolerable.
Colleges could fight back but they would have to stick together and I dont see that happening. For example they would have to agree to only have 40 players on the football team and 8 on the basketball team. Everyone else can go pound sand. See how the players liked them apples.
I think the whole "I'm jealous of you" argument is completely overblown by those who bring it up. If any player has that attitude, that would make them pretty soft and doesn't seem like the type of player you would want anyway. The argument of not paying attention to their game doesn't make much sense either because their ability to generate that income is based almost solely on how they perform. Plus, what they will most likely make money on (social media, camps and autographs) are things they already do and take little time. Luckily UNC has set something up to help them handle all of that, which will be a huge recruiting tool.
https://goheels.com/news/2021/6/16/...gramming-to-strengthen-nil-opportunities.aspx
Coaches would much prefer to expand the scholarship numbers, especially football coaches. But even if they made them smaller that won't change anything. The players who make the money, will be those players that will make the cut. All you've done is make sure the third string LG doesn't get a spot.
If players dont think a scholarship is worth anything then let's eliminate half of them. No need for colleges to waste all that money on useless scholarships.
Ok, but what exactly are you trying to accomplish with that? It doesn't hurt the players you want it to hurt. And the argument isn't that they aren't worth anything. The argument is that they put a cap on their earnings.
Well, it will save some schools some money. Scholarships aren't always paid by the school. They are almost always paid by donors and by athletic department money.
It's pretty simple. You think you can save the university money. The university is separate from the athletic department budget. The athletic department income comes mostly from donors, ticket sales, merchandising and TV revenue. So the university only saves money if you include the athletic department. Of course with your idea of getting rid of scholarship, the income probably comes down as well.
The chemistry issue will be an issue. Most 18 year olds are soft so if you threw the one complaining out, he'd just be replaced with another soft 18 year old. I guarantee that these issues will arise.
Secondly, I figured your rebuttal to my second point would be what you argued. But you're wrong. People watching on Youtube don't care if Zion knows how to set a screen at the elbow or box out properly. They just care if he knows how to dunk. It will promote more "me first, team second" type of play. A player like Zion can make tons of money by playing the wrong way.
As we've already seen, players are jumping ship at the first sign of adversity. Let them start thinking that their coach is "holding them back" from making money and you have created a potentially volatile relationship between coach and player which has already become stressed in the past few years due to player entitlement.
As I said before, it's hard to argue against the ruling from a legal standpoint. But this decision has far reaching, potentially catastrophic implications for college sports.
You don't understand how social media works. Zion doesn't need to dunk on YouTube videos. All he needs to do is tweet that he ate a ham sandwich. That's it. It was estimated that Trever Lawrence could have made six figures on Twitter last year. Him sending a tweet won't impact his play unless he breaks his thumb while tweeting.
Right. But would anyone care about Zion's ham sandwich if they had never seen him dunk? Not sure what point you're doing a poor job of trying to make.
The fans of the school will and the people who dislike duke will. I think the issue is you aren't familiar with two things. First, how social media works and second how low the bar is for kids to be impressed by someone. There is a whole service devoted entirely to kids watching other kids play video games.
Basically the overall point is that game play isn't going to change in order for someone to make money on social media. That's a ridiculous notion and is just something you came up with to make yourself feel better about your stance. It's a good example of you finally making it to the get off my porch age.
I know enough about social media to form this opinion. But you may be on to something with your second point. I have a pretty low opinion of kids today but you may be right; they could possibly be more shallow than even I think. That would be something.
Has the college game declined in the past 30 years? I think anyone over the age of 40 would argue that it has. Let's assume you're in that group and not going to argue an almost inarguable point. What do you attribute the decline to?
Why would it not impact the game? It's a distraction. However minor you may feel it to be, it's a distraction, nonetheless. And that's just social media. Now add in the ability to earn money by being "noticeable" on social media. What logic do you use to get to "nothing negative can come from that"?
I guess we'll see. My prediction is the product will suffer evidenced by (1) a decline in play, (2) a decline in the quality of coaching and (3) more kids being viewed as "can't miss" prospects flaming out and either not making it to the professional ranks or having shorter careers. All of those are measurable and the proof will be in the numbers.
You're going to have to define what decline in play is. I'm not a big fan of the shift to nothing but threes. I enjoyed watching players perfect that midrange game and the style of play that you saw in the 90's and early 00's. But the shift in style doesn't mean that the game is in decline. It's just simply a shift in style. If anything has had a negative measurable impact on the game, it would be the OAD era. But even then, you can make the argument that seeing these guys for just one year is better than never seeing them. I don't believe that, but my belief doesn't indicate a decline in the game. It's the same argument every generation has. My music/cars/movies/basketball, etc. is better than your music/cars/movies/basketball, etc. Really the only problem I have with it this time is that the government is involved in the argument. I think we can both agree that the government getting involved in anything is a bad thing.
Not equivalent. Pro sports' revenue sharing is negotiated in conjunction with a labor union. The labor has a say. College athletes don't have any say or representation. It's just an agreement between the schools themselves, and (as you'd expect) they set the price of labor wayyyyy below the market clearing price, which is why so many schools are paying players under the table. If the players were paid their marginal product, there would be no issue with "dirty" money.
I went to UNC for grad school, and they paid me for several different jobs there -- tutoring, being a TA, and consulting services for other departments (and well beyond minimum wage). Colleges have lots of employees; I don't see why athletes need special exemption from payment.
Not true at all. If school X offers $10k cash to a player, they are penalized. They're aren't free to "offer what they have to offer", because the schools collude to limit that behavior through the NCAA.
Yes, but the NCAA has a monopoly on the market essentially; leaving would remove schools from most of the prime events/tournaments/conferences. Even if it is possible for a powerful set of schools to break free without destroying their athletic program (e.g., maybe the SEC could do so), it doesn't mean the NCAA isn't a cartel.
The price of the athlete's labor is capped at a scholarship and whatever the cost of attendance stipend is now. Schools should be able to pay athletes a wage if they want to, just like UNC paid me when I was a student there for a far less valuable service than what some athletes provide.
My final thoughts on this are such:
I would be in favor of the NCAA changing the rules to allow student athletes to work a job that pays them. But I would not be in favor of them making money off any kind of leveraging of their status as an athlete. So in other words, if Armando Bacot wants to go wait tables at the local eatery, I'm all for it. But I'm not in favor of Mando making money off of him doing anything in relation to Carolina athletics. If he wants to sell photos and autograph them, they should be photos of him in his high school uni or street clothes.
The other option that I could probably stomach is that these "amateur" athletes can make as much money as they want, however they want. It gets put into an account and sits there (and earns interest) until they have graduated or announced they are forgoing their eligibility.
I would be in favor of the NCAA changing the rules to allow student athletes to work a job that pays them. But I would not be in favor of them making money off any kind of leveraging of their status as an athlete. So in other words, if Armando Bacot wants to go wait tables at the local eatery, I'm all for it. But I'm not in favor of Mando making money off of him doing anything in relation to Carolina athletics. If he wants to sell photos and autograph them, they should be photos of him in his high school uni or street clothes.
The other option that I could probably stomach is that these "amateur" athletes can make as much money as they want, however they want. It gets put into an account and sits there (and earns interest) until they have graduated or announced they are forgoing their eligibility.
I didn't say it was equivalent. I said it showed that imposed limits can be legitimate and acceptable. The other side of the coin you didn't reference is that the teams don't have to give the players, either as a union or as individuals, what they are asking for.
why do you think there are salary caps in pro sports? It's so a roughly level playing field can be established wherein particularly lucrative markets don't essentially 'buy' championships. Much of what the NCAA endeavors to create and maintain is also a level playing field. Much of what they endeavor to maintain is also BS, but the level playing field deal is legit.
please don't play dumb semantics crap and expect decent responses from me. What they have to offer so far as an education...which is the product that they offer....and the business that they are in....is what I meant and you're a moron if you tell me you didn't understand that.
I'm not against schools paying their athletes, as long as it is uniformly dished out, which is back to the level playing field idea. But there are schools that don't have the financial wherewithal of other schools, so there should be practical limits that keep any particular school from sewing up the top athletes. But then, if there are going to be limits, why pay them anything beyond the education being provided? Why shouldn't a school say here's what my education can do for you compared to school X and let that be it? This is that have your cake and eat it too attitude that is sucking the life out of our country. I will never accept a judgement that's based on 'well there's so much money being made, why shouldn't the employee get a bigger cut?'. That's a de facto socialistic commie point of view. 'Here's what I am offering, will you accept?' is the American freedom of choice way, and schools offer educations. It doesn't need to be run through an overly judicious principle that doesn't really need to apply in every somewhat related way..
And so what if a school leaves and finds itself high and dry? They had a choice to freely make and they have consequences of that choice that they should responsibly accept. Boo fvcking hoo that they can't have their cake and eat it too. As long as the NCAA doesn't try to cripple any effort for a set of schools to form a new association, you'll just see America being America and that's it.
"it doesn't mean the NCAA isn't a cartel."
and it doesn't mean it is, is my point. If you look hard enough with one eye already made up, you could call a lot of things cartels. Public schools, churches, etc. Let's just use common sense every chance we get.
I believe a school should be able to offer an education and essentially ONLY an education (with room and board, etc., of course), as compensation to the athletes they are ostensibly hiring to perform athletic tasks. I think the NCAA has a basically sound purpose, but it has become overly focused on maintaining that facade of amateurism, because once that facade is ripped off, and under the direction of judicial dunderheads, college athletics as we know it is history. It shouldn't be that way. All I want is for the reality of the so called student-athlete to be recognized so that the idiotic rules and restrictions put on players can be done away with. Just admit that players are recruited to perform and are being paid to do so with educations. There's no reason that the landscape has to be torn up, just as there's no reason some entity couldn't be formed to give athletes coming out of high school an alternative to attend a college.
Freedom. America. Tar Heels. In that order, most days
Of course they don't have to "give what the players are asking for". All I'm asking for is an open market. Let individual schools decide how much players are worth, and they can pay or not pay the players accordingly. I'm certainly not advocating for giving the players whatever they want.
It's you whose playing semantics. You've given no reason why "what they have to offer" should be limited to education. That's clearly not all they have to offer, and I see no reason to limit it as such. There's clearly lots of demand for cash payments, which is why many schools are offering them.
Why does any particular employer pay anyone a reasonable wage? Usually because the employee's service is worth at least that much to the employer. That's all I'm advocating for. Let schools decide for themselves what players are worth rather than the NCAA telling them they can only provide XYZ. You keep bringing up "freedom and America", but I'm the only one advocating for freedom. You want a centrally mandated and equal payment for all schools, while I want an open and free market. If UK wants to pay $100k for a player, I think they should be allowed.
Business actually can't collude to limit wages without an anti-trust exemption -- which is why the Supreme Court, including 6 conservatives, unanimously agreed to end this sham practice. As Justice Kavanaugh put it, "The NCAA is not above the law".
Of course it does! They're a bunch of suppliers agreeing collectively to limit wages! That's the definition of a cartel; whether or not one of the members could leave it has no bearing on the definition.
Oh absolutely. So do I! So long as they offer it of their own accord and not in conjunction with an explicit or implicit agreement with all other schools to offer no more than that. I also believe if UNC wants to offer $100k for Joel Berry to play for us for four years that's our own prerogative. For some reason you don't believe we should be allowed to do that, yet I can't understand why. Don't tell me you're advocating for "freedom" though when you don't believe an employer should be able to pay an employee whatever the heck they feel like.
schools have individually and freely decided to abide by a set of rules that establishes a level playing field. Players can decide to play or not play under that condition. You want to dictate to the schools what they have to offer. Not fair in America to dictate to ANY entity other than that the entity must not infringe on the rights of other entities. Players shouldn't decide what the schools can offer and the schools can't dictate that any player must accept an offer. YOU have no say in it at all.
you must not know what 'semantics' is. I have pointed out that schools should be able to offer the same product as compensation as other schools, while not fixing the price/value of said product.
No. I'm an employer. I tend to pay according to what other employers in my trade are paying. THAT is how an employee's worth in terms of compensation is decided. If I could get qualified people to work for bags of dirt, I would. And If an employee could get me to pay him in bags of cut diamonds and gold coins, he would do that (and he still would call in sick on Mondays, but I digress). But I end up offering him compensation comparable to what other companies pay, and he decides to come to work for me based not on what he thinks he's worth to me but on the appeal of working for my company.
You say you advocate freedom but you are taking away freedom on one hand to give it to another on the other hand. That isn't freedom, that's choosing favorites.
No one is above the law, but that doesn't mean the law is a good law or that the law is being interpreted reasonably. That's why there is a SCOTUS, but common sense tells us that no Justice is capable of perfect judgement.
but as I said, they are not fixing wages. They are offering educations of varying values.
you are contradicting yourself, and you don't realize that what UNC has chosen to do is what they ARE doing, which is NOT offering to pay Joel Berry a hundred grand. THAT is their choice and their prerogative. You say let the schools pay as they will 'AS LONG AS'. There's no 'AS LONG AS' in my interpretation of freedom other than each side has the freedom to offer and to accept or decline. Neither side dictates to the other what they must do in my definition of freedom.
But please, you go and tell Bubba and all the PTB in the UNC system that you support UNC paying Joel Berry a hundred thou. Let me know what the reaction is, in the form of a video if possible.
Folks this is going to be a mess, and will no doubt have a negative effect. Suddenly, the most important hire a coach will make will be the staffer responsible for lining up guaranteed endorsements for recruits. Recruiting will become a contest to who can present the best prepared endorsement package. But there will still be issues. Team chemistry will be a huge concern. In football, obviously the skill players will be the prime earners. And you are always going to have that loudmouth QB, RB, or wide out, that is going to run through the locker room bragging about how much cash they put in their pocket for lending their name to the local Chevy dealer. Meanwhile, the offensive lineman that gets nothing because the masses don't know who he is won't take kindly to that attitude. I can see lineman laying down on purpose just so they can laugh as the loud mouth star is hauled off to the hospital. This is not going to go smoothly. Pretty sure that this, and the open transfer system, are the main reasons Roy hung it up. Probably K also, although he won't admit it.
I think it’s exactly why Roy quit, and good for him. NIL, OAD, TP, AAU, NCAA, etc..., sports is a dirty business that is only going to get dirtier.
I haven't read all the details but the NIL is (in my opinion) the biggest leap so far in ending college athletics as we know it and doing away with the "student athlete" concept. What happens if the way the laws are written an agent is able to sign a contract with a kid. The agent uses these deals as loss leaders (he is paying the kid while in school) but makes money because the contract extends into pro career. Now the agent has an interest in the kid's pro career as opposed to a booster who runs the local car dealership whose loyalty is to the college.
If the agent doesn't like the way the coach is using the player, treating an injury, recruiting another kid at the position, etc. and the transfer portal is a freebie, that player is bolting. There is now much greater risk of player having some type of loyalty to someone other than the school/coach.
If the agent doesn't like the way the coach is using the player, treating an injury, recruiting another kid at the position, etc. and the transfer portal is a freebie, that player is bolting. There is now much greater risk of player having some type of loyalty to someone other than the school/coach.
I think UNC would definitely do that for some players if it was allowed, but allowing something like that would basically kill off the smaller schools and larger schools that can't afford to play. It would also force a school to choose between basketball and football, because there wouldn't be enough money to be great a both. That's why it will never happen. But all this isn't really about being paid by the schools. It's ultimately about letting the kids go out and earn money however they want to so the schools don't have to pay.
Berry is actually a great example of why it should be allowed. Despite the fact that Berry was an excellent college player, his chances of making good money in the NBA were basically zero. That means he was never able to use his workplace skills to make good money for himself. If he had those NIL opportunities, he could have made some good money while at UNC. It wouldn't have been millions of dollars, but with his popularity he could have probably made six figures for a couple of years.
Part of the reason it's a "dirty business" is because the rules have created a black market for services.
Last edited:
However this shakes out, letting the schools make money on an athletes NIL without the athlete getting a share is certainly not fair. It is blatantly unAmerican and the exact opposite of a free market. If we are a country based on freedom and a capitalist economic system then we cannot allow this to continue!
UNC still sells #50 jerseys and makes big bank on them. Hans doesn't get a penny and that is borderline criminal.
I have stated for years that they should allow the student to market himself as he/she/they please and put the $$ (after deducting a sliding scale as a give back for the scholly) in a Trust. The player can access the money after a stipulated time once he leaves the U!
Jealousy doesn't kill pro teams and the money is exponentially more! Peeps will adjust and the mantra will become, "If you want to make more work as hard/bring as much to the team as player X!" Teams already have levels within them. From the walk-on practice dummy, to the end of the bench; to the role player; to the 6th man; to the starter; to the star. The stars are on TV, get the ball, get the girls, get special treatment from the coaches, get credit for the wins, and get the interviews yet teams still manage to function! This is just another thing people will use as motivation or to weed out those who can't cut it!
If Rock & Roll didn't kill society and free agency didn't kill pro sports, then this won't kill college bball either!
(Social Media might, but that is another issue entirely-lol!)
UNC still sells #50 jerseys and makes big bank on them. Hans doesn't get a penny and that is borderline criminal.
I have stated for years that they should allow the student to market himself as he/she/they please and put the $$ (after deducting a sliding scale as a give back for the scholly) in a Trust. The player can access the money after a stipulated time once he leaves the U!
Jealousy doesn't kill pro teams and the money is exponentially more! Peeps will adjust and the mantra will become, "If you want to make more work as hard/bring as much to the team as player X!" Teams already have levels within them. From the walk-on practice dummy, to the end of the bench; to the role player; to the 6th man; to the starter; to the star. The stars are on TV, get the ball, get the girls, get special treatment from the coaches, get credit for the wins, and get the interviews yet teams still manage to function! This is just another thing people will use as motivation or to weed out those who can't cut it!
If Rock & Roll didn't kill society and free agency didn't kill pro sports, then this won't kill college bball either!
(Social Media might, but that is another issue entirely-lol!)
Completely disagree and don't think you understand my argument at all. I'll leave it at that.
If we moved to an open and free market tomorrow, would sports be "dirty"? This is how most industries work. Construction, restaurants, finance, etc pay their employees according to whatever their parties agree to independently. There's no penalty for paying someone a mutually agreed wage. The only reason there's even a perception of dirtiness with a 20 year old getting paid is because the different employers in this industry (the schools) collude to prevent market wages.
If college sports doesn't want to be an "industry", do away with the billion dollar tournaments and the multi-million dollar sponsorships. Until then, they can pay their employees market wages like every other industry does.
You cannot collude with other employers in your industry to penalize certain employers if they decide to pay their employees more than you. That's what the NCAA does.
And that's my point. College basketball players cannot do that under current NCAA rules. If they were free to negotiate with UK, UNC, etc I would have no issue.
Who am I taking away freedom from? I say let schools pay as much or as little as they want. Let athletes accept whatever they want. Full stop. Do you accept that? No of course not, because then some schools would start paying cash. You don't want the schools to have the freedom to pay more, nor the athletes to be free to negotiate more.
Mine is the maximally free market position; would love to hear you dispute that. Your position is in favor of the big, corrupt monopolist that is the exact reason we have anti-trust laws in this country. It's totally anti-conservative (in the traditional sense) and anti-American.
This is the most depressing thread I've ever read. By "read" I mean skipped over mostly to get to the last page.
How is this statement true? A scholarship at duke is worth over $50k per year. A scholarship at LSU is worth $20k per year. Is duke in trouble for offering more to their student-athletes than LSU?
And why are we referring to student-athletes as "employees"? That's going to be the nonstarter for any discussion with me about this.
Not sure I would call them employees, but I think it's laughable to call them students, at least compared to a normal student.
Latest posts
-
-
-
Transfer Portal Thread (Update 4-23: Portal update on several players)
- Latest: andrew jones
-
-
