NCAA Rule Change Would Permit Direct Payment to Athletes - Your Thoughts?

[parabrave]

The schools will never go for it. number 1 is that they will have to part with money where now "NIL" is paid by boosters so the schools have the best of both worlds.. Number 2 see number 1,

[confucius say]

The schools will never go for it. number 1 is that they will have to part with money where now "NIL" is paid by boosters so the schools have the best of both worlds.. Number 2 see number 1,

The schools have already agreed to it.

[confucius say]

The schools are scared of employee status.

And honestly, the players don't want it either.

[StarkVegasSteve]

The schools are scared of employee status.

And honestly, the players don't want it either.

Why would the players want employee status?? They get everything now with nothing in return. The pendulum is swung so far in their favor that it will be a miracle to ever swing it back in favor of the schools.

[confucius say]

Why would the players want employee status?? They get everything now with nothing in return. The pendulum is swung so far in their favor that it will be a miracle to ever swing it back in favor of the schools.

Agree. The Nico thing helped though. Public sentiment has swung. I think next you will see collectives going after players who violate their nil contracts. Progress is being made.

[StarkVegasSteve]

Agree. The Nico thing helped though. Public sentiment has swung. I think next you will see collectives going after players who violate their nil contracts. Progress is being made.

Yurachek is trying to do that with the other Iamaleava that was at Arky for 4 months. We'll see how that process ends up and that will give the answer on whether players can be pursued when they violate NIL deals.

[CaptainObvious]

I don't really care. I do hope enough schools within the same conferences opt out, but I don't see it happening. But...... the biggest complaint is that the schools are making all this money off athletics so the participants should be able to get a slice of that. Here is the fallacy with that issue. The schools aren't passing all that money around to their friends and family members. They are investing it. Investing it into upgrades to buildings and adding new buildings to replace old buildings and expanding parking and classroom space and dormitory space so they can add more students. They are using it to expand their research departments, to expand scholarship, to pay the Physics professor and the Statistics student teaching assistant more. They are expanding and improving facilities. They are expanding their national and international outreach programs. And sure, they are paying coaches at all levels higher salaries. But they are not buy ski lodges in Vail, or Masaratis for the tenured professors or million dollar homes for the mothers! What are the players using their NIL earnings for? Are they paying taxes? (By the way, the Mississippi Schools should be loading up on top players like the other states that don't have State a income taxes!) schools don't get to blow their earnings from athletics on elaborate pie in the sky things. But now Athletes can hold schools hostage for more, more, more. It isn't capitalism we see with NIL and the House Settlement. It is blackmail! And that is far closer to communism than capitalism.

Now back to our regularly scheduled dumbfoolery!

[R2Dawg]

A scholarship is a blanket communist / socialist approach. Everyone gets exactly the same no matter what their role / sport is. I'm told in theory this destroys exceptionalism and the American dream. Imagine if we all got the same salary whether we were CEO, Janitor, or Secretary at a company. That's what college sports traditionally were.

If you don't like it being torn down, then you're against a capitalist policy. If you like the status quo then you want communism.

These are statements of facts - not endorsements. Fair market value means each person can negotiate for more or the school can negotiate for less if you don't provide value. Capitalism 101.

I don't think that is an apples to apples comparison. College isn't being an adult and having a job in the free market. It is about getting an education to help you provide for the rest of your life. 98% of these athletes will not have a pro career. Those top players will get paid after amateur career; Ironically they still may want that degree if they squander their Pro pay which many do.

Back to your free market example, top students or students in hard majors don't get free rides or some do for those in easy majors. The benefit of being a college athlete is a real benefit compared to the rest in the IHL. Our IHL are being destroyed by this bloated athletic disaster. Our society will not be better off down the road for this.

[R2Dawg]

I don't really care. I do hope enough schools within the same conferences opt out, but I don't see it happening. But...... the biggest complaint is that the schools are making all this money off athletics so the participants should be able to get a slice of that. Here is the fallacy with that issue. The schools aren't passing all that money around to their friends and family members. They are investing it. Investing it into upgrades to buildings and adding new buildings to replace old buildings and expanding parking and classroom space and dormitory space so they can add more students. They are using it to expand their research departments, to expand scholarship, to pay the Physics professor and the Statistics student teaching assistant more. They are expanding and improving facilities. They are expanding their national and international outreach programs. And sure, they are paying coaches at all levels higher salaries. But they are not buy ski lodges in Vail, or Masaratis for the tenured professors or million dollar homes for the mothers! What are the players using their NIL earnings for? Are they paying taxes? (By the way, the Mississippi Schools should be loading up on top players like the other states that don't have State a income taxes!) schools don't get to blow their earnings from athletics on elaborate pie in the sky things. But now Athletes can hold schools hostage for more, more, more. It isn't capitalism we see with NIL and the House Settlement. It is blackmail! And that is far closer to communism than capitalism.

Now back to our regularly scheduled dumbfoolery!

To add to your list they spend that money from athletics on more athletics facilities. Anyone looked at the price to build new and maintain these facilities? It is huge.

[Extendedcab]

I don't think that is an apples to apples comparison. College isn't being an adult and having a job in the free market. It is about getting an education to help you provide for the rest of your life. 98% of these athletes will not have a pro career. Those top players will get paid after amateur career; Ironically they still may want that degree if they squander their Pro pay which many do.

Back to your free market example, top students or students in hard majors don't get free rides or some do for those in easy majors. The benefit of being a college athlete is a real benefit compared to the rest in the IHL. Our IHL are being destroyed by this bloated athletic disaster. Our society will not be better off down the road for this.

This^^^^^^^. All day!

[Tater]

I don't think that is an apples to apples comparison. College isn't being an adult and having a job in the free market. It is about getting an education to help you provide for the rest of your life. 98% of these athletes will not have a pro career. Those top players will get paid after amateur career; Ironically they still may want that degree if they squander their Pro pay which many do.

Back to your free market example, top students or students in hard majors don't get free rides or some do for those in easy majors. The benefit of being a college athlete is a real benefit compared to the rest in the IHL. Our IHL are being destroyed by this bloated athletic disaster. Our society will not be better off down the road for this.

Being an adult is 18. College sports ain't special cause you feel like it's special.

You provide a service. Your company makes money off the service. (Some lose money). You get paid for your service. This is literally the bare definitions of a job. Unilaterally capping every employee's pay would be "collusion" and would require monopoly busting of the communist plan.

Look I can't learn basic economics for ya. If you want to be dumb - so be it. Talking about students and people learning things... you're kinda off the beaten track there bud. That's a different can of worms.

[StarkVegasSteve]

I don't think that is an apples to apples comparison. College isn't being an adult and having a job in the free market. It is about getting an education to help you provide for the rest of your life. 98% of these athletes will not have a pro career. Those top players will get paid after amateur career; Ironically they still may want that degree if they squander their Pro pay which many do.

Back to your free market example, top students or students in hard majors don't get free rides or some do for those in easy majors. The benefit of being a college athlete is a real benefit compared to the rest in the IHL. Our IHL are being destroyed by this bloated athletic disaster. Our society will not be better off down the road for this.

And this is where this whole issue will come to a head. Neal McCready has been saying it for years but what is stopping these kids from staying in college for 8 years. A lot of people have two degrees. How are we going to say that a kid only has 4 years? Like where did we come up with that number? We let people every day go to college for multiple degrees. What is stopping someone like Chad Baker Mazzara from staying in college an additional 2 years? That kid is not going to the NBA and he is not making 2.5 million in his first job out of college. The NCAA has continually lost these affecting my earning potential cases and a hard cap on eligibility affects their earning potential. The NCAA is going to have to win one of these cases before I believe they will be able to get a handle on this.

[Political Hack]

Athletes provide the entertainment that generates the revenue that allows the schools to enhance their academic offerings. And the athletes do not get any semblance of a fair market value for performing. The old system of providing food, a place to stay, and some on-the-job-training isn't much different than what we used to call "indentured servitude" back in the day.

[Extendedcab]

Hog wash!

[confucius say]

Being an adult is 18. College sports ain't special cause you feel like it's special.

You provide a service. Your company makes money off the service. (Some lose money). You get paid for your service. This is literally the bare definitions of a job. Unilaterally capping every employee's pay would be "collusion" and would require monopoly busting of the communist plan.

Look I can't learn basic economics for ya. If you want to be dumb - so be it. Talking about students and people learning things... you're kinda off the beaten track there bud. That's a different can of worms.

Real capitalism and a true free market know nothing of monopolies and antitrust law. Those were created to punish entities that became uber successful. In a true free market, they would be left alone and the solution would be to start a new entity to compete against them.

Same way with the ncaa. Instead of saying the ncaa can't make rules, a true free market would leave the ncaa alone and your recourse would be to create a new entity with different rules to compete against it. But alas.

[Extendedcab]

Some of you need to do a little research on why the NCAA was formed to begin with and why scholarships were originally provided. - To protect amateur sports and provide financial assistance to those who need it! Remember - Students are NOT Employees!!!

Before the NCAA, a governing committee was formed, college sports was much like today in the NIL era. Back then Teams regularly used graduated students and paid ringers to play and there was a lack of integrity within amateur athletics.

The NCAA was formed primarily to put an end to professional players and ringers playing on college teams. The NCAA's position on amateurism, as it appears in Articles VI and VII of the 1906 NCAA bylaws, is unequivocal and uncompromising.

The first government issued grants-in-aid for college students took place in the mid 1940' s. The congressional passage of the G.I. Bill of Rights made millions of dollars available in Federal funds to ex-servicemen coming home from WWII who chose to pursue a college education. The sudden availability of so much "scholarship" money created a more favorable public image of financial aid. It also put a new emphasis on aid to student-athletes. Students and student-athletes could get tuition and living allowance from the federal government with no obligation to take part in athletics (Falla, 1981 ).

In response to a growing number of gambling and point shaving scandals throughout collegiate athletics, the NCAA tried to find a way to curtail the illegal activity in amateur sports. In 1946 at the NCAA Conference of Conferences special meeting in Chicago the participants drew up the "Principles for the conduct of Intercollegiate Athletics" in questionnaire form. These "principles" would become known as the "Sanity Code" because its supporters viewed it as a means of restoring sanity to college sports (Falla, 1981 ).

In 1948, the NCAA introduced the Sanity Code as part of Article 3 of the NCAA Constitution. The Sanity Code was the NCAA's way of reducing the amount of grant in aid a student athlete could receive, (Hickok 2002). Under the Code, a student-athlete could receive a tuition and fees scholarship (not room and board) if the student had a demonstrated financial need and met the schools normal admissions requirements.

This is the original intent of scholarships - to financially aid those who could not afford college.

Now here is where the trouble started with the NCAA - greed sets in.

In 1952, the principles governing financial aid that appeared in Article Ill, Section 4, gave individual institutions freedom to set their own financial aid policies for athletes, the only requirement being that such aid be administered by each athlete's institution (NCAA, 2007). After pronouncing itself against full-ride athletic scholarships to college for several decades, the NCAA capitulated in 1952 when student aid based on athletic skill rather than financial need or academic merit was approved (Bernstein, 2001).

The IVY league tried to correct this blunder by the NCAA - Sack and Staurowsky wrote that in 1954, the Ivy Group (League) signed an agreement that reaffirmed its previous stand against athletic scholarships. "Athletes" according to the agreement, "shall be admitted as students and awarded financial aid only on the basis of the same academic standards and economic need as are applied to all other students.

The NCAA screws up again:

In 1956, the full ride athletic scholarship was sanctioned and grants-in-aid have been part of the NCAA lexicon ever since. The new grants in aid included tuition, fees, room and board, books and $15 per month laundry money, (Britz, 2005). Even with this new rule schools and their boosters still sought competitive advantage and devised new ways to pay their athletes on the side (Zimbalist, 1988). By the 1956 school year, the NCAA rescinded the Sanity Code policy and the association was basically forced to offer full grants in aid so the athletes would be compensated enough to quit taking illegal payments. The 1956 legislation extended the amount
of allowable financial aid to cover commonly accepted educational expenses, and it eliminated need as a requirement (Sack and Staurowsky, 1988).

Conclusion:

A scholarship as defined by the tenth edition of Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary is a grant in aid to a student (as by a college or foundation) (Mish 2000).
The need to implement rules concerning amateur athletics was evident from the conception of college athletics. College administrators instituted regulations regarding the use of athletic scholarships as an attempt to eliminate gambling and pay for play in early American amateur athletics. The hope of college presidents and policy makers of the early 1900s was to eliminate the outside business people and boosters from interfering with amateur contests on their campuses. One of the original thoughts behind offering athletic scholarships was to prevent other college team captains and coaches from tampering with the rosters of the college teams.
After the NCAA was formally established, the directors worked hard to implement ways of protecting the student athlete while at the same time benefiting from the amateur athletes love of performing on the fields and courts of their perspective universities.

In full disclosure this information came from a Graduate Research Paper on the History of Athletic Scholarships by Nathan Courtney - University of Northern Iowa in 2008.

I think this URL is correct - https://scholarworks.uni.edu/grp/4178

[Political Hack]

Athletes don't work only 8 hours a day. It's a lifestyle they have to adopt. Sleep, nutrition, study, practice, film, working out, etc... it's a schedule that many of us wouldn't take on for our current salaries. And we ask them to do it for pennies on the dollar while the coaches and conference executives make MILLIONS off their performance.

I can't understand anyone arguing, in America, that it should remain that way. It's why the NCAA loses every court case. What they've done to hundreds of thousands of student athletes over the last half-century is illegal under U.S. law. That's why they owe back pay now. And if they're not careful, someone will file an Anti-trust lawsuit against them and the conferences and squash "amateurism" completely.

Salary cap broken down by P5, P4, mid-major, etc... would be a good start to regulating this. They need to create a system where (1) athletes are given their fair share or revenue and (2) balanced payrolls create some level of equity in recruiting.

[HailState2008]

How is that different than our entire history ???

Exactly. Nothing is different except we need to do out of box thinking to compete every few years. Things like possibly exactly a few corporate sponsors to step in when we have an athlete that needs to be paid after a great year. For example, if NIL was there during Daks? years then after 2014 we would have to figure out to get him paid on top of what potentials boosters bought into the equation.

[BrunswickDawg]

Athletes don't work only 8 hours a day. It's a lifestyle they have to adopt. Sleep, nutrition, study, practice, film, working out, etc... it's a schedule that many of us wouldn't take on for our current salaries. And we ask them to do it for pennies on the dollar while the coaches and conference executives make MILLIONS off their performance.

I can't understand anyone arguing, in America, that it should remain that way. It's why the NCAA loses every court case. What they've done to hundreds of thousands of student athletes over the last half-century is illegal under U.S. law. That's why they owe back pay now. And if they're not careful, someone will file an Anti-trust lawsuit against them and the conferences and squash "amateurism" completely.

Salary cap broken down by P5, P4, mid-major, etc... would be a good start to regulating this. They need to create a system where (1) athletes are given their fair share or revenue and (2) balanced payrolls create some level of equity in recruiting.

And the only way to effectively do that is to adopt the same model as the pros - forming a Union and going through collective bargaining. The NCAA and Congress are going to get sued if they actually implement this - and they will lose because they have no representation of the athletes in this process. That has been the flaw in this all along. The pros have proven that this process makes EVERYONE richer. And why we are holding on to this made up concept of "amateur" is dumb.

Add to this. If I as student on scholarship is working at CAVS, an I invent something that has practical applicability, MSU and I patent it and we both get a split.
How is this any different then athletes sharing in the revenue??

[StarkVegasSteve]

And the only way to effectively do that is to adopt the same model as the pros - forming a Union and going through collective bargaining. The NCAA and Congress are going to get sued if they actually implement this - and they will lose because they have no representation of the athletes in this process. That has been the flaw in this all along. The pros have proven that this process makes EVERYONE richer. And why we are holding on to this made up concept of "amateur" is dumb.

Add to this. If I as student on scholarship is working at CAVS, an I invent something that has practical applicability, MSU and I patent it and we both get a split.
How is this any different then athletes sharing in the revenue??

Off topic a tad, but I was a student worker at CAVS during undergrad(I answered the phones. The stuff they worked on was 10 miles above my head), but I had no clue about the split. I thought the university might take a small percentage but it sure as hell isn't a small percentage.