Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #301  
Old 10-01-2015, 04:05 PM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,946
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
Well, it's not exactly the same. The Olympics weren't tied to mostly-not-for-profit colleges and universities. But it's still hard to distinguish the two.
As one who has never experienced the emotional ties that are so unique to college sports, I have a tendency to overlook how they skew one's perspective. Yet I believe two things: (1) that most of those fans with ties to the schools will continue their affiliation to the athletic teams if the kids are making a few shekels from outside sources and (2) that a growing percentage of television viewers are made up of fans of neither of the two teams on the field and will care even less about it.

My disillusion with the football power schools remains such that I don't think this is really about money except in the way that power equals money in college sports. This is about the maintenance of power first.
  #302  
Old 10-20-2015, 01:41 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,498
VICE published an article today that debunks an article in The New Yorker by Ekow N. Yankah that argued that paying athletes would be wrong.

The VICE article is called THE NCAA'S ECONOMIC EXPLOITATION OF ATHLETES WON'T BE SOLVED BY MORE OF THE SAME
Quote:
Let's be clear: colleges are commercial entities that sell education at market prices, and students choose the best mix of economic and non-economic benefits being offered. Except for the very rich, every student—athlete or not—makes his or her college selection with money in mind. Moreover, the college sports economic activities that Yankah decries in his article—$5 million coaching salaries and under-the-table payments to players that sour alumni—are not symptomatic of an excessive professionalization of the on-field workforce. Rather, they're the pernicious, all-too-predictable side effects of an otherwise vibrant industry denying the talent its due.
Quote:
It shocks me how often I have to say this in a country where the dignity of an honest day's worth is supposedly held in such high esteem, but money is not inherently evil. Money offered freely and fairly to encourage activities that we consider worthy is the lifeblood of the American economy. If a market for elite college athletes exists on an in-kind basis (with tuition, books, housing and like as the coin of the realm), then cash payments within that market are no more evil than Mr. Yankah's paycheck. Or my own. Schools outbid each other all the time for able administrators; for top-shelf professors; for promising scholars. Have those institutions lost a connection with their own values? Hardly.

Both articles are good reads, but IMO Mr. Yankah's views are ridiculous and oppressive.
  #303  
Old 10-20-2015, 02:20 PM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,946
Jay Bilas will debate Oliver Luck tonight on the subject "College athletes should be allowed to be paid," a precise wording that pleased Bilas (and me) very much. How many times have you read the comments section and some goober says that some schools "can't afford to pay their football players! All the smaller sports will have to be cut!" Which is a complete misunderstanding of the issue at hand.

The debate is being streamed at eight on something called thefire.org.
  #304  
Old 10-20-2015, 02:26 PM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,315
Is that the issue at hand? I suggested that boosters should be allowed to pay players early on in this thread, but as far as I know the lawsuits are not about that issue; those players seem to want to be paid directly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
Whatever happens, the current NCAA football model is already dead. Amateurism has been a joke for decades, and the five major conferences are on the verge of opting out for football purposes anyway.

It's not the NCAA's fault; they didn't set out to be the NFL's feeder league. It just happened that way. IMHO, the only way to fix the system is to dump the antiquated player pay rules. Keep the scholarships and the tiny stipends, and let the boosters decide who they want to give their money to.

If somebody wants to give Reggie Bush an Escalade, why the hell should the NCAA care?
  #305  
Old 10-20-2015, 03:19 PM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,946
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
Is that the issue at hand? I suggested that boosters should be allowed to pay players early on in this thread, but as far as I know the lawsuits are not about that issue; those players seem to want to be paid directly.
The O'Bannon lawsuit was about using likenesses without compensation. The Kessler lawsuit is about ending the schools' agreements to strictly limit athletes' compensation. I'm not sure if there is any ongoing court battle where the athletes are directly trying to force the schools to pay them for their routine services, though the athletes would probably like this to happen.

Basically, the schools are being asked to step back. They are being asked to defend their assumed power to enforce student earnings. They are being asked to allow an open market for the athletes' services. If they don't want to pay the third string tight end while the QB is making $100 thousand, that's too bad for the TE.
  #306  
Old 10-20-2015, 05:38 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
The O'Bannon lawsuit was about using likenesses without compensation. The Kessler lawsuit is about ending the schools' agreements to strictly limit athletes' compensation. I'm not sure if there is any ongoing court battle where the athletes are directly trying to force the schools to pay them for their routine services, though the athletes would probably like this to happen.
Sacks v. NCAA; here's the GD thread I started about it.

ETA: Thanks for the heads-up on that discussion tonight. I'll try and make time for it.

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 10-20-2015 at 05:39 PM.
  #307  
Old 10-20-2015, 07:49 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,498
I hope that there will be a transcript of this debate available later, because Oliver Luck seems to be undercutting his (and the NCAA's) position nearly every time he speaks; a transcript would allow his own words to be used against him without inaccurate paraphrasing.
  #308  
Old 10-20-2015, 08:14 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,498
That was an excellent debate and I'd like to thank you again Red Wiggler for bringing it to my attention.

I did think, tho, that Mr. Bilas destroyed the opposing position. One of my favorite moments was when Mr. Luck said it was okay that coaches were being paid because they were adults, while the "student-athletes" should not be paid and Mr. Bilas interrupted him to point out that college students are also adults. Mr. Luck was never able to deflect or minimize the damage because his argument(s) are, IMO, stupid.
  #309  
Old 10-20-2015, 08:31 PM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,946
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
That was an excellent debate and I'd like to thank you again Red Wiggler for bringing it to my attention.

I did think, tho, that Mr. Bilas destroyed the opposing position. One of my favorite moments was when Mr. Luck said it was okay that coaches were being paid because they were adults, while the "student-athletes" should not be paid and Mr. Bilas interrupted him to point out that college students are also adults. Mr. Luck was never able to deflect or minimize the damage because his argument(s) are, IMO, stupid.
By all accounts a decent and intelligent man, Luck did a pretty skillful job IMO at presenting the schools' illogical arguments. But his primary argument had the inevitable glaring flaw in it -- that college football and basketball players, alone in the American landscape, are exploited by being compensated for their skills.

Nobody tries to stop rich parents from sending their kids money for expenses. Nobody tries to stop students from slinging hash at the local diner or even from dancing around poles to earn book money. The federal government even reimburses schools up to 75% of students' pay on the work study program and colleges bust ass to get internships for their undergrads. Because money isn't exploitation.

They pay Coach K $10 million a year and he's a god in Durham. They put up a statue to that awful man in Tuscaloosa and pay him $7 million annually. And keep adding on to the stadiums because so many fans are turned off by the commercialism. "We're special" is a pretty weird argument and I don't think it'll convince the courts when Jeffrey Kessler gets a couple of weeks to make his case.
  #310  
Old 11-06-2015, 11:29 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,946
While Ed O'Bannon's lawyers work for an en banc review by 11 of the Ninth District's judges, a former Weber State player has filed suit against the NCAA's transfer restrictions, specifically the requirement that a transfer be required to sit out a year before playing for a new team.

Overturning that restriction would severely limit the leverage a coach and school have over a recruit after he has accepted a football or basketball scholarship.
  #311  
Old 11-07-2015, 12:45 PM
That Don Guy's Avatar
That Don Guy is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
While Ed O'Bannon's lawyers work for an en banc review by 11 of the Ninth District's judges, a former Weber State player has filed suit against the NCAA's transfer restrictions, specifically the requirement that a transfer be required to sit out a year before playing for a new team.

Overturning that restriction would severely limit the leverage a coach and school have over a recruit after he has accepted a football or basketball scholarship.
The lawsuit claims that the NCAA claimed the rule exists so that a transfer can get used to the new school, but I always thought the rule was there to prevent athletes from using college sports as a minor league for the pros (which is why every sport except baseball, basketball (men's and women's), men's ice hockey, and football allows an athlete one transfer without the sit-out, provided the university from which the athlete is leaving does not object).
  #312  
Old 10-03-2016, 09:25 AM
PastTense is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 7,728
Quote:
The Supreme Court said on Monday it will not consider the Ed O’Bannon antitrust case against the NCAA. Both sides had asked the justices to hear the case, which became a test about the legality of the NCAA’s limits on what top-level football and men’s basketball players can receive for playing college sports and for the use of their names, images and likenesses in live television broadcasts, rebroadcasts and video games...

Instead, Monday’s decision leaves intact the 9th Circuit’s dual rulings that:
--The NCAA’s regulations are subject to antitrust scrutiny, and rules limiting football and men’s basketball players to receiving tuition, fees, room, board and books violate antitrust laws.
--While antitrust law requires that schools be allowed to provide these athletes with scholarships that cover all of their costs of attending college, including travel and personal incidentals, “it does not require more,” such as what it termed “cash sums untethered to educational expenses.”
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...case/91462090/
  #313  
Old 10-03-2016, 09:41 AM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by That Don Guy View Post
The lawsuit claims that the NCAA claimed the rule exists so that a transfer can get used to the new school, but I always thought the rule was there to prevent athletes from using college sports as a minor league for the pros (which is why every sport except baseball, basketball (men's and women's), men's ice hockey, and football allows an athlete one transfer without the sit-out, provided the university from which the athlete is leaving does not object).
AIUI football players may transfer without sitting out so long as the departure team doesn't object. But they nearly always do. There was a palaver over Wisconsin's coach adopting a hypocritical posture on this when he objected to a departing player playing for his new school immediately, but demanded a waiver from another school (Michigan?) for a player coming to his team.
  #314  
Old 10-03-2016, 11:04 AM
That Don Guy's Avatar
That Don Guy is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
AIUI football players may transfer without sitting out so long as the departure team doesn't object. But they nearly always do. There was a palaver over Wisconsin's coach adopting a hypocritical posture on this when he objected to a departing player playing for his new school immediately, but demanded a waiver from another school (Michigan?) for a player coming to his team.
The NCAA bylaws say that a waiver to the one-year sit-out rule cannot be given in the sports of FBS football or Division I basketball (both men's and women's), baseball, or men's ice hockey, nor for FCS football if the athlete has only one year of eligibility left (if leaving FBS) or is transferring from an FCS school with football scholarships to one without them.

There are exceptions; for example, the oft-quoted "Graduate School exception," which apparently (I can't find this exact wording in the bylaws) lets someone who graduates from a school transfer to another school if he wants a masters degree in something in which his current school does not offer one (although I think that means "the new school creates some major that the old school doesn't have solely for purposes of the transfer" - technically, the athlete can transfer anyway if the old school announces that it is cutting the athlete's scholarship), and one where someone can transfer from a school that has a postseason ban in that sport for the remainder of the athlete's eligibility.
  #315  
Old 10-04-2016, 02:12 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by PastTense View Post
I like how the NCAA is trying to spin it as "does not require more" and claim that as a victory.

BTW, I started a new thread to keep track of all NCAA legal suits.

I'll have to try and collate these older threads there, so we can at least find them easily for reference.

And no, I'm not saying people should stop posting to these old threads.
  #316  
Old 12-31-2016, 07:29 PM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,946
Last week the 129 FBS athletic directors formed a PAC. Does anyone doubt that there is but one end game in mind for this lobbying association? They will never find a more sympathetic congress than the current one for passing legislation that permanently restricts college athletes' commercial rights.
  #317  
Old 06-13-2017, 09:39 AM
PastTense is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 7,728
"Quit College Sports Or Quit YouTube": NCAA Threatens UCF Kicker's YouTube Channel
Quote:
The NCAA reportedly nixed the YouTube channel of UCF’s kickoff specialist, Donald De La Haye, after discovering that some of De La Haye’s videos contained content of him displaying his day-to-day life as a UCF athlete.

De La Haye’s channel has published 41 videos over the past year, piling up 54,000 subscribers and two million views in that time. His videos are nearly all related to his athletic career, though only a few directly address his status as UCF’s kicker; others are simply videos showing off his daily kicking regime and ability to boot a flatscreen TV from a ledge. As De La Haye stated in his latest video, entitled “Quit College Sports Or Quit YouTube,” because he was profiting from ads placed on his videos and channel homepage, the NCAA determined that he was profiting off his own likeness—the nerve!—and put its foot down.

His video announcing the NCAA’s decision to intervene and kill any future videos in which they do not directly reap the profit of his labor was released on Saturday.
http://deadspin.com/quit-college-spo...ucf-1796033861
  #318  
Old 06-13-2017, 10:08 AM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,498
I hope a shitload of lawyers are reading that story. Thanks for posting it here, PastTense.

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 06-13-2017 at 10:08 AM. Reason: .
  #319  
Old 06-13-2017, 01:48 PM
That Don Guy's Avatar
That Don Guy is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,639
The way the NCAA sees it, it's not that he's "profiting off his own likeness," but that he's "profiting off his football ability," since that is what the videos are mainly about (and, presumably, why people are watching them) - in other words, he makes money from his football ability, which, in the NCAA's eyes, makes him a "football professional."
  #320  
Old 06-13-2017, 03:12 PM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,315
That's not how the NCAA sees it. The NCAA's bylaws prohibit an athlete from profiting from his own likeness whether or not the profits are related to his football ability. That's why college athletes can't get jobs at Target earning more than annual "incidental expenses," even if they're paid minimum wage and work just like everyone else.
  #321  
Old 06-15-2017, 09:17 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,946
What would really happen if college athletes were allowed to make whatever income they could command? (like every other college student) That's the question I really want schools, and supporters of the status quo, to answer honestly. We can't have an honest discussion about all this if the schools continue to simply make shit up.
  #322  
Old 06-15-2017, 10:59 AM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,498
FWIW I added PastTense's article to the omnibus thread I mentioned in post #315.
  #323  
Old 06-15-2017, 09:05 PM
That Don Guy's Avatar
That Don Guy is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
That's not how the NCAA sees it. The NCAA's bylaws prohibit an athlete from profiting from his own likeness whether or not the profits are related to his football ability. That's why college athletes can't get jobs at Target earning more than annual "incidental expenses," even if they're paid minimum wage and work just like everyone else.
Excuse me?
"Compensation may be paid to a student-athlete (a) Only for work actually performed; and (b) At a rate commensurate with the going rate in that locality for similar services." This is a direct quote from the NCAA Bylaws.
If the athlete makes the same that a non-athlete would, then the NCAA doesn't have a problem with it.

The problem is when (a) the athlete is overpaid, (b) is paid for not actually doing any work (this pretty much destroyed San Francisco's basketball program), or (c) the employer is profiting from the fact that the athlete works there. For example, if a lot of people suddenly start shopping somewhere where a star athlete is working, and the owner raises prices as a result, this could be a violation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
What would really happen if college athletes were allowed to make whatever income they could command? (like every other college student) That's the question I really want schools, and supporters of the status quo, to answer honestly. We can't have an honest discussion about all this if the schools continue to simply make shit up.
What would probably happen is, boosters would get together and start paying players to attend their school - in other words, it would become a professional league. Why even bother making the athletes attend class, if the whole reason they are there is to play football?

Note that the schools themselves couldn't do it, mainly because of Title IX.
"Of course we pay the men more - they bring in more money!"
"Er, you are aware that Title IX exists because of statements like that, right?"
  #324  
Old 06-15-2017, 10:05 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,051
Frankly, we really should have a professional football minor league, and separate it from universities. What's the point of tying education and sports together in the first place?
  #325  
Old 06-15-2017, 10:54 PM
That Don Guy's Avatar
That Don Guy is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Frankly, we really should have a professional football minor league, and separate it from universities. What's the point of tying education and sports together in the first place?
IMO, what we should have is a minor league football and men's basketball system where the teams are in college towns, but the only link to the schools would be that the teams would play in on-campus arenas. Why not have the Ann Arbor Wolverines play the Columbus Buckeyes? The universities could even charge enough "rent" on the teams to cover their other sports programs.

I remember watching a movie where a school was said to be "a football team with a university attached to it." Actually, I shouldn't have said "said," as the movie predates sound movies by a few years - it was the 1925 Harold Lloyd silent film The Freshman; this goes to show how old this problem is.
  #326  
Old 06-16-2017, 06:19 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,051
But why should the campus even have an arena at all, and why should they have other sports programs to be supported?

You're also too optimistic about the money. At most schools, all of the sports, including football and basketball, are money-losers. Oh, they'll tell you that sports are so important because they bring in so much money for the school... and that's why all students should be expected to pay an athletic fee, because sports are so important that they deserve the money.
  #327  
Old 06-16-2017, 07:09 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,946
Quote:
Originally Posted by That Don Guy View Post
Excuse me?
"Compensation may be paid to a student-athlete (a) Only for work actually performed; and (b) At a rate commensurate with the going rate in that locality for similar services." This is a direct quote from the NCAA Bylaws.
If the athlete makes the same that a non-athlete would, then the NCAA doesn't have a problem with it.

The problem is when (a) the athlete is overpaid, (b) is paid for not actually doing any work (this pretty much destroyed San Francisco's basketball program), or (c) the employer is profiting from the fact that the athlete works there. For example, if a lot of people suddenly start shopping somewhere where a star athlete is working, and the owner raises prices as a result, this could be a violation.


What would probably happen is, boosters would get together and start paying players to attend their school - in other words, it would become a professional league. Why even bother making the athletes attend class, if the whole reason they are there is to play football?

Note that the schools themselves couldn't do it, mainly because of Title IX.
"Of course we pay the men more - they bring in more money!"
"Er, you are aware that Title IX exists because of statements like that, right?"
Why would college sports (some colleges) becoming a "professional league" be a detriment? That's fairly vague, when you think hard about it. People earning money for their skills is generally a good thing.

Also, it may be a really good thing for the athletes if the academic requirements were relaxed to such an extent that more of them succeeded in earning degrees. Keep the four years of eligibility but give them X number of years to use a full degree's worth of academic credits. I'd even make them transferable in case the athlete would rather gift them to a friend or family member (or even sell them) who could make better use of them.
  #328  
Old 06-16-2017, 07:16 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,946
And while we're engaged on the general subject, this might be a good time to introduce sports economist Andy Schwarz's proposal to the nation's historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs). He is advising them to drop out of the NCAA and begin paying the players on their basketball teams. His reasoning is that they don't have much to lose -- they are increasingly noncompetitive in most sports and the potential television money they could earn by cornering the nation's top basketball talent would surpass whatever dribs and drabs come their way from March Madness and their conference packages now.
  #329  
Old 06-16-2017, 07:57 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,051
Why target the HBCUs specifically for that? It'd make sense for any school.
  #330  
Old 06-16-2017, 08:07 AM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,498
I can see where the ROI for that would take a while tho. The NCAA wouldn't just sit on their hands and let it happen. There'd be all kinds of lawsuits and a PR campaign about how these schools were robbing the students of their chance to experience college like a regular student, how being paid so much money at such a young age was destructive to their character, etc.

And I think we all know by now just how stupid and gullible the American public can be, how susceptible they are to repressive ideas that only affect vague "others". Or do I need to offer some examples?

I'm just saying that while might be a good idea, it wouldn't be an easy transition.
  #331  
Old 06-16-2017, 08:07 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,946
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Why target the HBCUs specifically for that? It'd make sense for any school.
Just speculation but maybe because those schools are struggling financially and might find it generally easier to recruit great players willing to risk a plan outside the traditional boundaries. If it worked, it would definitely catch on with other schools around the nation, maybe even all of them, and the HBCUs would be right back where they started from.

But I don't know this for sure. I will ask. Mr. Schwarz has been pretty good about responding to my questions in the past.
  #332  
Old 06-16-2017, 08:24 AM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,498
I think in order to do it, tho, you'd need to find 10-12 schools that would go all in at the same time so you could present a league to the public. The amount of surreptitious organizing it would take beforehand would be tremendous and you'd have to do everything knowing that the NCAA was going to throw millions and millions of dollars worth of preventative PR and lawsuits your way.

It'd be a tough row to hoe, but the harvest would not only be one of the biggest cash crops ever, it would fundamentally alter the college and sports landscapes. And that much change is gonna scare the crap outta people, so add that in as something else to overcome.

Still, I like the idea. It certainly seems more egalitarian than the current situation.
  #333  
Old 06-16-2017, 10:03 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,946
I can't think of any legal recourse the NCAA would have towards schools leaving its membership. And the NCAA's PR dilemma would be massively fun to watch.

The unanswerable question is if the best talent choosing to attend HBCUs would be enough to offset the popularity of the traditional college powers. The HBCUs wouldn't have to equal or surpass the NCAA tv ratings -- they would just need to cover their player costs. A $30,000 per year stipend for a 12-man basketball roster only costs $324k annually and they could pretty much get that by dropping their money-losing football programs.

I confess that I have no idea how Title IX fits into all this.
  #334  
Old 06-16-2017, 11:29 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,946
In a short series of tweets to me, Andy Schwarz attempted to answer the questions posed above (why the HBCUs in particular?).

Quote:
(1) HBCU are the least rewarded member of current cartel structure, so they have least to lose from price competition

(2) the goal -- to end the exploitation of African Americans by powerful entrenched institutions is at the core of the HBCU mission and

so changing all of D1 basketball is more in sync with their mission that, say, the America East.
I'll add another, perhaps unrelated, thought to those of Mr. Schwarz. If letting college athletes make money truly is the disaster on so many levels that opponents have predicted, then better to contain and easier to reverse the problem at Alcorn State than in all the ACC schools (for example). However, I think those arguments are total bullshit and that the only result will be all of the D1 schools capitulating after losing the best basketball talent to the likes of Bethune-Cookman year after year.
  #335  
Old 06-16-2017, 01:54 PM
That Don Guy's Avatar
That Don Guy is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
But why should the campus even have an arena at all, and why should they have other sports programs to be supported?
For the same reason "big-time" college football and men's basketball still exist in the first place - tradition. Also, if a school wants to let its athletes attend college and get a degree, it can.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
You're also too optimistic about the money. At most schools, all of the sports, including football and basketball, are money-losers. Oh, they'll tell you that sports are so important because they bring in so much money for the school... and that's why all students should be expected to pay an athletic fee, because sports are so important that they deserve the money.
I don't think paying players is really a problem outside of the "power schools," and considering how much money they get from their conference's football TV contracts and the CFP football and NCAA men's basketball tournament payouts, money isn't really a problem for them.

According to the 2015 NCAA Division I Revenues and Expenses Report, page 28, half of the 128 FBS football schools made a profit from football, and half made a profit from men's basketball. (Note that this "profit" does not include money given to the athletic department by the school.)

In the vast majority of cases - and I can't think of a single instance where someone attends a Division II or III school solely to prepare for a career as a professional athlete - college athletes are students first and athletes second. This is what the NCAA is claiming that it is trying to protect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
Why would college sports (some colleges) becoming a "professional league" be a detriment? That's fairly vague, when you think hard about it. People earning money for their skills is generally a good thing.

Also, it may be a really good thing for the athletes if the academic requirements were relaxed to such an extent that more of them succeeded in earning degrees.
Of what use is a watered-down degree?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Why target the HBCUs specifically for that? It'd make sense for any school.
IMO, the main reason the big sports schools haven't broken off from the NCAA and formed their own organization is, most of them have decent programs in sports besides football and men's basketball, but there are enough schools in pretty much every sport that are also championship-capable in those sports but don't have the football or basketball programs good enough to be part of the "outlaw" organization, in which case, you start the arguments over which school is the true "national champion" in that sport. Baseball. Ice hockey. Lacrosse. Wrestling...
  #336  
Old 06-16-2017, 02:20 PM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,946
Quote:
Originally Posted by That Don Guy View Post
For the same reason "big-time" college football and men's basketball still exist in the first place - tradition. Also, if a school wants to let its athletes attend college and get a degree, it can.


I don't think paying players is really a problem outside of the "power schools," and considering how much money they get from their conference's football TV contracts and the CFP football and NCAA men's basketball tournament payouts, money isn't really a problem for them.

According to the 2015 NCAA Division I Revenues and Expenses Report, page 28, half of the 128 FBS football schools made a profit from football, and half made a profit from men's basketball. (Note that this "profit" does not include money given to the athletic department by the school.)

In the vast majority of cases - and I can't think of a single instance where someone attends a Division II or III school solely to prepare for a career as a professional athlete - college athletes are students first and athletes second. This is what the NCAA is claiming that it is trying to protect.
If this is true, the NCAA is full of shit with this argument. Making money is not necessarily a hindrance to academic achievement.


Quote:
Of what use is a watered-down degree?
You misunderstood me. I think. Is a player using six years to obtain the necessary credits for graduation obtaining a "watered-down" degree? I think less and less so as traditional education evolves.

Quote:
IMO, the main reason the big sports schools haven't broken off from the NCAA and formed their own organization is, most of them have decent programs in sports besides football and men's basketball, but there are enough schools in pretty much every sport that are also championship-capable in those sports but don't have the football or basketball programs good enough to be part of the "outlaw" organization, in which case, you start the arguments over which school is the true "national champion" in that sport. Baseball. Ice hockey. Lacrosse. Wrestling...
Could you restate this section, please? I'm lost reading it as is. TYIA.
  #337  
Old 06-16-2017, 02:36 PM
Chisquirrel is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,609
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
In a short series of tweets to me, Andy Schwarz attempted to answer the questions posed above (why the HBCUs in particular?).



I'll add another, perhaps unrelated, thought to those of Mr. Schwarz. If letting college athletes make money truly is the disaster on so many levels that opponents have predicted, then better to contain and easier to reverse the problem at Alcorn State than in all the ACC schools (for example). However, I think those arguments are total bullshit and that the only result will be all of the D1 schools capitulating after losing the best basketball talent to the likes of Bethune-Cookman year after year.
Finally! Cartel describes my thoughts on the NCAA perfectly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
If this is true, the NCAA is full of shit with this argument. Making money is not necessarily a hindrance to academic achievement.
SURPRISE! The NCAA is full of shit, especially when it comes to "preserving the integrity of the education for athletes".

Quote:
You misunderstood me. I think. Is a player using six years to obtain the necessary credits for graduation obtaining a "watered-down" degree? I think less and less so as traditional education evolves.
I believe his argument is that most big-sport college athletes are being funneled to majors and classes that exist, at least in part, to maintain their eligibility. Even if they do graduate, many "student-athletes" didn't learn anything useful, and everyone knows it.


Quote:
Could you restate this section, please? I'm lost reading it as is. TYIA.
A university or college leaving the NCAA all by itself is taking a tremendous risk. Even if a dozen or more leave at once, collectively they are minnows trying to compete in a media ocean dominated by the NCAA whale.
  #338  
Old 06-16-2017, 03:06 PM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,946
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
Finally! Cartel describes my thoughts on the NCAA perfectly.



SURPRISE! The NCAA is full of shit, especially when it comes to "preserving the integrity of the education for athletes".



I believe his argument is that most big-sport college athletes are being funneled to majors and classes that exist, at least in part, to maintain their eligibility. Even if they do graduate, many "student-athletes" didn't learn anything useful, and everyone knows it.
I think an argument ensued about this subject earlier in this thread (or maybe another one, not sure). Yes, schools are not helping athletes by (a) funneling them into low-value courses and (b) making huge demands on their time while insisting the players carry a full load (of useless courses).

I think schools should insist on a minimal load of courses carried while the players are athletically eligible but give them time to complete them after their eligibility expires. Or alternatively, to keep them (the credits) from being wasted, simply award the athlete 120 credits (or whatever the degree equivalent is now) to use or sell as he pleases.



Quote:
A university or college leaving the NCAA all by itself is taking a tremendous risk. Even if a dozen or more leave at once, collectively they are minnows trying to compete in a media ocean dominated by the NCAA whale.
Ah, thanks. Yes, of course it's a risky maneuver, which is why it's being pitched to HBCUs and not the ACC schools. Some of the HBCUs are currently operating in the $5 million athletic revenue ranges, or about half of what Duke pays Coach K. How much worse can it get for them?

By leaving the confines of the NCAA they will have the freedom to recruit the best basketball players in the country. How long before that translates into greater revenues than produced by their current involvement with the NCAA? There may be people who watch college sports mainly because of the schools involved but there are also significant numbers who will choose to watch the best young players, regardless of school affiliation. IMO, of course.

Last edited by Red Wiggler; 06-16-2017 at 03:07 PM.
  #339  
Old 06-16-2017, 04:06 PM
Chisquirrel is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,609
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
I think an argument ensued about this subject earlier in this thread (or maybe another one, not sure). Yes, schools are not helping athletes by (a) funneling them into low-value courses and (b) making huge demands on their time while insisting the players carry a full load (of useless courses).

I think schools should insist on a minimal load of courses carried while the players are athletically eligible but give them time to complete them after their eligibility expires. Or alternatively, to keep them (the credits) from being wasted, simply award the athlete 120 credits (or whatever the degree equivalent is now) to use or sell as he pleases.
That's already provided for by the NCAA. Division I schools are measured by their GSR, which is determined by how many student-athletes graduate within 6 years. Schools are already encouraged to ensure their students graduate, which lead to bird courses in the first place.
  #340  
Old 06-17-2017, 04:46 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by That Don Guy View Post
Excuse me?
"Compensation may be paid to a student-athlete (a) Only for work actually performed; and (b) At a rate commensurate with the going rate in that locality for similar services." This is a direct quote from the NCAA Bylaws.
If the athlete makes the same that a non-athlete would, then the NCAA doesn't have a problem with it.
This is interesting because there are significant numbers of people 'working' and being compensated at a pretty high 'rate' for doing things like promoting shoes, acting in commercials, doing TV and Radio appearances, etc. Yet all of these jobs are restricted. I'm going to bet this You Tube Kicker isn't getting paid at a rate any different than anyone else on the service, he's just more successful at it than the NCAA thinks he deserves to be.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:55 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017