Straight Dope Message Board

[Omniscient]

NCAA clears way for athletes to profit from names, images and likenesses

So in the wake of the Fair Pay to Play Act along with copycat legislation popping up in other states like Nevada and Illinois, the NCAA appears to have finally relented.

It's currently unclear exactly how this will be implemented and what the restrictions might be, but it certainly looks like Ed O'Bannon will get to take his place next to Curt Flood in sports history. Whether this is just the first step towards colleges directly paying players remains to be seen.

This topic was discussed over in the old The SDMB NCAA thread but I think this probably deserves it's own thread, so here we have it.

Personally, I'm split on this. Intuitively this feels like the right thing to do. It doesn't seem fair that the NCAA and it's partners should be able to profit exclusively from these kids' popularity, but I also think it's likely that this is the beginning of the end of big-time college sports. This will completely and totally break the system and there will be a massive fracturing of the top divisions. Fans aren't gonna like the unintended consequences of this. 1

[Chronos]

Yup, the real solution is an end to college sports, at least as they exist now. Create real minor leagues, for the players who are going pro. And if schools want to have sports teams just for fun, they should have exactly the same status as any other extracurricular club on campus. 2

[Atamasama]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Yup, the real solution is an end to college sports, at least as they exist now. Create real minor leagues, for the players who are going pro. And if schools want to have sports teams just for fun, they should have exactly the same status as any other extracurricular club on campus.

You’re preaching the same sermon I’ve been saying for years.

Baseball got it right in my opinion. 3

[Omniscient]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Yup, the real solution is an end to college sports, at least as they exist now. Create real minor leagues, for the players who are going pro. And if schools want to have sports teams just for fun, they should have exactly the same status as any other extracurricular club on campus.

This is so reductive. Sure, let's just have groups of 50+ random students buy the gear and hire the refs and take on the liability of playing tackle football. Want to play inter-collegiately, best hire the bus drivers and get hotel rooms too. To hell with any college kid who happens to like the part of the college experience that is going to games, participating in booster squads and pep rallies, and having a cultural touchstone to rally around. Get back in the fucking library! 4

[Atamasama]

Originally Posted by Omniscient

This is so reductive. Sure, let's just have groups of 50+ random students buy the gear and hire the refs and take on the liability of playing tackle football. Want to play inter-collegiately, best hire the bus drivers and get hotel rooms too. To hell with any college kid who happens to like the part of the college experience that is going to games, participating in booster squads and pep rallies, and having a cultural touchstone to rally around. Get back in the fucking library!

I again point to baseball. College baseball exists but it isn’t the industry that football and basketball are. The minor leagues deflate the importance of college baseball.

Chronos didn’t suggest completely ending college athletics, just “as they exist now”. In other words, as a huge money-making endeavor that cuts out those putting in the effort and risk of athletic performance. 5

[Chronos]

Hey, it works for the Ultimate players. Why can't it work for football? 6

[Omniscient]

Originally Posted by Atamasama

I again point to baseball. College baseball exists but it isn’t the industry that football and basketball are. The minor leagues deflate the importance of college baseball.

Chronos didn’t suggest completely ending college athletics, just “as they exist now”. In other words, as a huge money-making endeavor that cuts out those putting in the effort and risk of athletic performance.

That's not what he said or implied. He said if students want to play "for fun", it should be treated like a club sport or intramural. Essentially eliminating intercollegiate events and removing any school sponsorship. That suggestion has no relationship to NCAA baseball, it's what Frat league flag football is like.

NCAA Baseball is EXACTLY like NCAA Football and Basketball with the sole exception of there being a economically viable competing minor league option. The NBA has even introduced a new rule for the G League to give kids a non-college option in the wake of the 19 year old age restriction in the NBA. Saying the NFL and NBA should be like MLB makes no sense, they are by rule exactly the same already in the NCAA's eyes. The only difference is economics and tradition. The NCAA's rules aren't the problem. 7

[Omniscient]

Oh, and I should add....this new rule could destroy minor league baseball too. If schools are able to pay players, why would any talented 18 year old sign up to ride the fucking bus from Tupelo to Lexington and stay in a shitty Motel 6 when you can get an education and hang out on campus with coeds and stay in a dorm for the same money? 8

[cochrane]

This could potentially benefit EA Sports, which hasn't put out an NCAA football game since 2013, due to issues over using the names and images of college athletes. Now that athletes can cash in on their names and likenesses, EA can put out a licensed NCAA product once again. Of course details have to be worked out with the NCAA and the players. Will they be paid individually, or work out a collective bargaining agreement through their schools? But the demand for a videogame with NCAA licensing is out there. 9

[Omniscient]

Originally Posted by cochrane

This could potentially benefit EA Sports, which hasn't put out an NCAA football game since 2013, due to issues over using the names and images of college athletes. Now that athletes can cash in on their names and likenesses, EA can put out a licensed NCAA product once again. Of course details have to be worked out with the NCAA and the players. Will they be paid individually, or work out a collective bargaining agreement through their schools? But the demand for a videogame with NCAA licensing is out there.

It will be interesting. Keep in mind that the rule doesn't say that the players can exclusively profit from their name and likeness, only that they can accept money when offered. I suspect every contract that the student-athletes sign with the school, if they don't already, will start including a non-exclusive license to their name and likeness. EA stopped including the names out of fear of the pending lawsuits, not because they were explicitly prohibited by anything. 10

[enalzi]

Originally Posted by Omniscient

Oh, and I should add....this new rule could destroy minor league baseball too. If schools are able to pay players, why would any talented 18 year old sign up to ride the fucking bus from Tupelo to Lexington and stay in a shitty Motel 6 when you can get an education and hang out on campus with coeds and stay in a dorm for the same money?

But the schools aren't paying, it's just use of names and likenesses. The big money is going to be in Football and Basketball. I can't imagine many college baseball players making any decent money. 11

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by Omniscient

This is so reductive. Sure, let's just have groups of 50+ random students buy the gear and hire the refs and take on the liability of playing tackle football. Want to play inter-collegiately, best hire the bus drivers and get hotel rooms too. To hell with any college kid who happens to like the part of the college experience that is going to games, participating in booster squads and pep rallies, and having a cultural touchstone to rally around. Get back in the fucking library!

If they’re happy to enjoy all this on the backs of athletes, then absolutely yes to hell with them. I have no sympathy with someone lamenting the loss of a system based on servitude, injustice, and oppression. 12

[Icarus]

Mark my word! (Mark it. Are you marking? I don't see you marking.) Somebody is going to find a way to make a lot of money off of this, and it ain't going to be the athletes. 13

[Omniscient]

Originally Posted by enalzi

But the schools aren't paying, it's just use of names and likenesses. The big money is going to be in Football and Basketball. I can't imagine many college baseball players making any decent money.

It's the first shoe to drop. We'll see, but once players can profit from their fame the lines between what is a marketing deal and what is a player salary will get blurry super fast. Can the school pay the player for the use of their likeness on merchandise and TV and not call it a player salary? Can a booster sign the next Tua to a $5M sponsorship deal to his car dealership that just happens to operate exclusively in northern Alabama? Can the University then choose that dealership when purchasing any staff or service vehicles?

Look at the payrolls in the MLB. Do you seriously think that there wouldn't be any demand for big money in college baseball? Top MLB draft picks routinely sign for $4-5M per year, why wouldn't a college spend that in order to try and become the next NCAA super team and sell $100M worth of hats and TV rights? 14

[Omniscient]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

If they’re happy to enjoy all this on the backs of athletes, then absolutely yes to hell with them. I have no sympathy with someone lamenting the loss of a system based on servitude, injustice, and oppression.

Why don't you just go all in an call them slave owners? That usually is the next ad hominem to come up in these debates.

I acknowledge that this might ultimately be the more "fair" way to do things. But fair ain't always fair. A pure free market economy is "fair" but that also led us to all the pre-labor movement suffering.

Let's suppose that I'm right and everything implodes as a result of this. All college sport dissolves into club sports with no administration and no support from any governing body. All professional leagues ramp up their own farm systems totally separate from the NCAA.

What does that mean, here's some possibilities:
1. College campuses become a little more exclusive and a little more white.
2. There's one fewer way for a underprivileged kid to get an education.
3. Scholarship kids end up taking out more loans.
4. There's no funding for non-revenue sports. Women's team sports totally and completely dry up.
5. Those kids playing unsanctioned and unregulated sports start getting injured on bad fields with no medical support.
6. Unregulated sports become socially exclusive limiting access to certain groups. Maybe private companies fill the void and introduce their own profit-driven injustices.
7. Lots of kids skip school and never get an education chasing the dream of going pro.
8. Minor league sports operate in the shadows on smaller budgets leading to a different form of exploitation without the protections, as they are, of the NCAA.

We'll see. Everyone said Saddam was the worst person in the world, but then when he was gone what replaced him? Perhaps a bad analogy, but if you think the alternative to the NCAA is automatically more just you haven't been a very good student of history. 15

[Chronos]

Or another possibility: Minorities stop buying the myth that sports are a realistic way, or even the only way, to get ahead in the world, and start applying for the scholarship-based scholarships, and campuses become less white and exclusive. 16

[Acsenray]

It may be hyperbole for people to refer to collegiate athletics as the modern plantation, but hyperbole just mean that a fundamental truth is being exaggerated.

I don’t have to call them slave owners but don’t expect me to have sympathy for someone crying about a loss of entertainment because an injustice is being corrected.

If you’re going to make an argument for giving kids from historically oppressed backgrounds opportunities for education, you’ll have to do better than to suggest that the only or best way to do it is to subject student athletes to a ridiculously oppressive system.

If a post-NCAA collegiate athletics regime is worse than than what we have now then I’m happy to tear that down too. This is athletic entertainment, not literal anarchy like in post-Saddam Iraq.

The NCAA has had decades to reconsider its regime and take progressive steps towards fairness. They didn’t. Now they can go fuck themselves. And anyone crying about losing their fun can go jump in the lake. 17

[rsat3acr]

The NCAA should be more concerned about the number of FBS football players that are on a free ride in major institutions who couldn't qualify for JuCo if they couldn't play ball. 18

[racepug]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

If they’re happy to enjoy all this on the backs of athletes, then absolutely yes to hell with them. I have no sympathy with someone lamenting the loss of a system based on servitude, injustice, and oppression.

I'm with you on this 100% (maybe not for exactly the same reason[s], but I AM with you on it)! 19

[racepug]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

Now they can go fuck themselves. And anyone crying about losing their fun can go jump in the lake.

The NCAA is bloated, corrupt, and doesn't fairly apply whatever standards it claims to have. As far as I'm concerned if it implodes as a result of this, all the better. 20

[racepug]

Originally Posted by rsat3acr

The NCAA should be more concerned about the number of FBS football players that are on a free ride in major institutions who couldn't qualify for JuCo if they couldn't play ball.

[Men's] basketball, too. 21

[Ponch8]

Originally Posted by Omniscient

Oh, and I should add....this new rule could destroy minor league baseball too. If schools are able to pay players, why would any talented 18 year old sign up to ride the fucking bus from Tupelo to Lexington and stay in a shitty Motel 6 when you can get an education and hang out on campus with coeds and stay in a dorm for the same money?

I doubt it would destroy minor league baseball. Remember, highly-drafted players get a huge signing bonus long before they ever make it to the majors. For instance, the #1 pick in 2017 got $6,725,000 right out of high school: https://www.mlb.com/news/2017-draft-...ker-c237042574 22

[That Don Guy]

Love that multi-quote!

Originally Posted by Omniscient

That's not what he said or implied. He said if students want to play "for fun", it should be treated like a club sport or intramural. Essentially eliminating intercollegiate events and removing any school sponsorship. That suggestion has no relationship to NCAA baseball, it's what Frat league flag football is like.

A number of "club sports" are interscholastic. For example, a lot of California schools play "club" ice hockey against each other. Also, there are currently quite a few interscholastic sports where the NCAA has no say in the matter; rugby and men's rowing come to mind. (In fact, the NCAA offered to host a men's rowing championship, but the three main rowing conferences - the Pac-12, the Ivy League, and the Big 10 - pretty much said, "Thanks, but after seeing what you do with your women's rowing championship, we'll handle this ourselves."

Originally Posted by Omniscient

It will be interesting. Keep in mind that the rule doesn't say that the players can exclusively profit from their name and likeness, only that they can accept money when offered. I suspect every contract that the student-athletes sign with the school, if they don't already, will start including a non-exclusive license to their name and likeness.

Except that if there is any payment by the schools to the players, it will be considered paying the athletes to play, which the NCAA has made quite clear it will not allow. "Marketing fees" smacks of money laundering.

Originally Posted by Icarus

Mark my word! (Mark it. Are you marking? I don't see you marking.) Somebody is going to find a way to make a lot of money off of this, and it ain't going to be the athletes.

And as long as it is not the schools, the NCAA doesn't really have a problem with that. I can see, for example, Nike signing a number of runners on the condition that they all attend Oregon (that way, they can market them as "Team Nike") - but as long as there's no direct connection between the school and the company, there's no problem.

Originally Posted by Omniscient

It's the first shoe to drop. We'll see, but once players can profit from their fame the lines between what is a marketing deal and what is a player salary will get blurry super fast. Can the school pay the player for the use of their likeness on merchandise and TV and not call it a player salary? Can a booster sign the next Tua to a $5M sponsorship deal to his car dealership that just happens to operate exclusively in northern Alabama? Can the University then choose that dealership when purchasing any staff or service vehicles?

The way I see it:

"Can the school pay the player for the use of their likeness on merchandise and TV and not call it a player salary?" - No.

"Can a booster sign the next Tua to a $5M sponsorship deal to his car dealership that just happens to operate exclusively in northern Alabama?" - Yes.

"Can the University then choose that dealership when purchasing any staff or service vehicles?" - Only if the university can show that the deal had nothing to do with the dealership signing the player; otherwise, the dealership owner is considered a "representative of the school's athletics interests" and any payment is treated as if it came directly from the school.


College sports in general are not going anywhere any time soon - especially at the "smaller schools." There will always be a need for an NCAA, if for no other reason than to keep the Division II and III schools in line. Of course, that brings up another matter - UC-Santa Cruz is in Division III, so it can't give out scholarships, but its players can be paid to license their names/likenesses... 23

[Oredigger77]

I think this is a terrible idea. What's going to happen is the schools with the deepest booster pockets will buy the best teams. Each recruiting season coaches will go to their booster club meetings with their list of recruits and how much they think it will take to land them and then the boosters will sign these high school seniors to long term exclusive sponsorship deals of 5 years or so. So all that is accomplished by this plan is to make major college sports more corrupt and increase the difference between men's a womens sports. 24

[Icarus]

Originally Posted by Oredigger77

I think this is a terrible idea. What's going to happen is the schools with the deepest booster pockets will buy the best teams. Each recruiting season coaches will go to their booster club meetings with their list of recruits and how much they think it will take to land them and then the boosters will sign these high school seniors to long term exclusive sponsorship deals of 5 years or so. So all that is accomplished by this plan is to make major college sports more corrupt and increase the difference between men's a womens sports.

Probably not? The title of "booster" is specifically defined by the NCAA with dos and don'ts. I'm guessing the new NCAA rules will cover booster activity. 25

[Oredigger77]

Originally Posted by Icarus

Probably not? The title of "booster" is specifically defined by the NCAA with dos and don'ts. I'm guessing the new NCAA rules will cover booster activity.

Are you suggesting that a booster couldn't have his company hire a student athlete as their spokesperson? Man, Nike is going to be pissed. Same with Mesa Petroleum. Southwestern Energy is another one. There is no way they could write a rule that prevents booster owned companies from using the local team's athletes in their marketing and paying whatever they want too. 26

[Omniscient]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Or another possibility: Minorities stop buying the myth that sports are a realistic way, or even the only way, to get ahead in the world, and start applying for the scholarship-based scholarships, and campuses become less white and exclusive.

Originally Posted by Acsenray

If you’re going to make an argument for giving kids from historically oppressed backgrounds opportunities for education, you’ll have to do better than to suggest that the only or best way to do it is to subject student athletes to a ridiculously oppressive system.

You both are living in some fantasy world where taking away one avenue to an education, which you happen to disagree with for what seem to be very emotional reasons, will somehow magically create new opportunities in totally unrelated areas.

There's nothing at all stopping kids from applying for scholarship-based scholarships today. Taking away sports isn't going to somehow grow that segment simply by it's absence. Nor did I ever suggest that this is the only way to do it or the best way to do it, just that it does do it for many people today. Those other avenues deserve investment, allowing schools and companies to pay athletes will do nothing to move the needle on that.

Honestly, I don't think either of you are thinking critically or objectively on this. 27

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by Omniscient

You both are living in some fantasy world where taking away one avenue to an education, which you happen to disagree with for what seem to be very emotional reasons, will somehow magically create new opportunities in totally unrelated areas.

There's nothing at all stopping kids from applying for scholarship-based scholarships today. Taking away sports isn't going to somehow grow that segment simply by it's absence. Nor did I ever suggest that this is the only way to do it or the best way to do it, just that it does do it for many people today. Those other avenues deserve investment, allowing schools and companies to pay athletes will do nothing to move the needle on that.

Honestly, I don't think either of you are thinking critically or objectively on this.

I don’t think this comment has any relation to what was quoted from my post, so I have no idea what you’re talking about. 28

[Cheesesteak]

Originally Posted by Oredigger77

I think this is a terrible idea. What's going to happen is the schools with the deepest booster pockets will buy the best teams.

Do you seriously believe this isn't what's already happening? Even if they strictly follow the rules on not paying players, there's a mountain of money from boosters (and other sources) that go to non-players with the specific intention of enabling the team to better recruit players.

At least in this new scenario, that money goes to the people performing the work instead of hangers-on. 29

[That Don Guy]

Originally Posted by Oredigger77

I think this is a terrible idea. What's going to happen is the schools with the deepest booster pockets will buy the best teams. Each recruiting season coaches will go to their booster club meetings with their list of recruits and how much they think it will take to land them and then the boosters will sign these high school seniors to long term exclusive sponsorship deals of 5 years or so. So all that is accomplished by this plan is to make major college sports more corrupt and increase the difference between men's a womens sports.

I assume your last sentence should read, "Increase the difference between football and men's basketball, and all of the other sports," and even then, only at FBS football and Division I men's basketball schools. Note that there already is a significant difference; FBS football and Division I men's basketball are the only sports where the schools earn money from postseason. (The NCAA pockets any profits from all of its tournaments, except for Division I Men's Basketball, where the TV money is divided among the schools and conferences based on a number of factors.)

I read an article that said that this can help "smaller sports" athletes, especially women, as well, and gave this example: UCLA gymnast Katelyn Ohashi became a bit of a social media sensation, and under this rule, she could lend her name to a gymnastics training academy and make money off of it - something she can't do under the current rule, as it would be considered "profiting from her athletic ability."

Originally Posted by Oredigger77

Are you suggesting that a booster couldn't have his company hire a student athlete as their spokesperson? Man, Nike is going to be pissed. Same with Mesa Petroleum. Southwestern Energy is another one. There is no way they could write a rule that prevents booster owned companies from using the local team's athletes in their marketing and paying whatever they want too.

I know I'm repeating myself, but the way I read the new policy (and how the NCAA will almost certainly want to enforce it) is, the boosters can pay whatever they want - if they receive no benefit from the school in return. Otherwise, they are considered "interests of the athletic program," and anything they give to the athletes is considered to come from the university, making the athletes immediately ineligible.

Of course, "receiving a benefit from the school" and "just happening to overhear a press conference touting one or more high school athletes on the school's 'wish list' of players" are two different things. There are plenty of schools whose boosters would gladly "license" players without expecting anything (other than watching their school win national championships, of course) in return, but I didn't mention any names coughNotre Dame USCwheeze sorry about that; I was a little too close to Sunday's Carquinez Bridge fire.

It is possible for, say, Nike to offer track and field athletes shoe contracts if they attend Oregon, and if the school is left out of the loop, it would be allowed. "Why would Nike want to do it if they didn't get anything from Oregon?", you ask? Because this gives it the chance to market the athletes as some sort of "Team Nike." 30

[Red Wiggler]

Originally Posted by Oredigger77

I think this is a terrible idea. What's going to happen is the schools with the deepest booster pockets will buy the best teams. Each recruiting season coaches will go to their booster club meetings with their list of recruits and how much they think it will take to land them and then the boosters will sign these high school seniors to long term exclusive sponsorship deals of 5 years or so. So all that is accomplished by this plan is to make major college sports more corrupt and increase the difference between men's a womens sports.

I'm not seeing the problem. The rules prohibiting athletes' earnings are the corruption. Eliminate those and now we have a simple marketplace, the kind enjoyed by the rest of the commercial nation. 31

[Omniscient]

Acsenray, you said as I quoted (emphasis mine):

If you’re going to make an argument for giving kids from historically oppressed backgrounds opportunities for education, you’ll have to do better than to suggest that the only or best way to do it is to subject student athletes to a ridiculously oppressive system.

I said:

Nor did I ever suggest that this is the only way to do it or the best way to do it, just that it does do it for many people today.

Then you said:

Originally Posted by Acsenray

I don’t think this comment has any relation to what was quoted from my post, so I have no idea what you’re talking about.

If you're lost on this, I don't think I can help. 32

[Omniscient]

Originally Posted by Cheesesteak

Do you seriously believe this isn't what's already happening? Even if they strictly follow the rules on not paying players, there's a mountain of money from boosters (and other sources) that go to non-players with the specific intention of enabling the team to better recruit players.

At least in this new scenario, that money goes to the people performing the work instead of hangers-on.

No, I don't think what's happening today is close to what is coming. I think there's some money....just enough to be able to be hidden and spread around to family members without attracting too much notice. They're punishing enough programs so that there's some pressure to resist the temptation and to not be egregious.

In the future, I think we're essentially going to have Jr. Professional Football and Jr. Professional Basketball leagues with the top 20-30 programs, usually in places that don't have major pro teams to compete with, paying players multi-million dollar deals under the sponsorship of the marketing arms of these largely public schools.

The majority of schools, those middle-class programs like Arkansas, Illinois, Vanderbilt, Washington, Iowa State, Colorado and the like, will probably close up shop since they won't have the revenue to compete. 33

[Cheesesteak]

Originally Posted by Omniscient

No, I don't think what's happening today is close to what is coming. I think there's some money....just enough to be able to be hidden and spread around to family members without attracting too much notice.

Not that money, the other money. The millions donated by boosters, the millions trading hands between networks, apparel companies and schools, much of it used to create a recruiting environment so that the big schools can get the best players.

In the future, I think we're essentially going to have Jr. Professional Football and Jr. Professional Basketball leagues with the top 20-30 programs, usually in places that don't have major pro teams to compete with, paying players multi-million dollar deals under the sponsorship of the marketing arms of these largely public schools.

This is what you already have, just without the players getting paid.

I would think one of the sticking points would be that player endorsement type deals must not be dependent on attending a particular school. As in, they may profit from using their likeness, but not profit from being a member of THE Ohio State University Football Team. As these payments are public and above board, this is much easier to police than under the table payments. 34

[Red Wiggler]

Originally Posted by Omniscient

The majority of schools, those middle-class programs like Arkansas, Illinois, Vanderbilt, Washington, Iowa State, Colorado and the like, will probably close up shop since they won't have the revenue to compete.

I've never understood this logic. Can't those schools with lesser revenues just compete among themselves? Isn't that what D3 does? Why "close up shop?" Some of the schools you mention have football/basketball revenues in eight or nine figures; I can't figure why the business would just shut down because it can't beat Alabama and its player compensation levels. 35

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by Omniscient

I said:

It's a way? You're not making a very strong argument. It's a way that depends on taking advantage of student athletes in an oppressive manner. So, it's a way that shouldn't exist. Use the other ways, the ways that don't put the burden on student athletes. 36

[Omniscient]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

It's a way that depends on taking advantage of student athletes in an oppressive manner.

You keep saying this. Perhaps you misunderstand what oppression is. 37

[Omniscient]

Originally Posted by Red Wiggler

I've never understood this logic. Can't those schools with lesser revenues just compete among themselves? Isn't that what D3 does? Why "close up shop?" Some of the schools you mention have football/basketball revenues in eight or nine figures; I can't figure why the business would just shut down because it can't beat Alabama and its player compensation levels.

For football, there are 129 FBS schools and 125 FCS schools in DI. There are then 167 DII and 250 DIII schools. Of that group, only the 129 FBS schools make any money at all. The rest have negligible media deals and almost no market presence.

If schools start paying players costs will skyrocket causing those 129 FBS schools to fracture and it will probably end up with ~25 "Blue Chip" schools that sell out games and have mega TV deals paying players. The remaining 100 or so FBS schools will no longer be on TV regularly and will no longer be in the conversation for the top-tier of players and coaches. The costs of running those programs will make them unsustainable in their current form, they will essentially become another non-revenue classification more like what FCS schools are today.

If Ohio State and Michigan are paying players millions of dollars but Illinois and Indiana are not, the Big Ten won't survive with a even more extreme lack of parity than it has now. Same story with the SEC and the rest of the conferences. A massive re-organization will occur.

Maybe those former FBS schools will carry on just like the FCS, DII and DIII schools do, but I think it's more likely that there's a significant contraction.

It's weird that the progressive argument here is the one that will lead to massive consolidation and a far less egalitarian sports landscape. 38

[Atamasama]

I’m sorry but that sounds like fear-mongering to excuse the exploitation that the NCAA has gotten away with for so long and I don’t buy it for a second. Neither do most people. 39

[Omniscient]

Originally Posted by Atamasama

I’m sorry but that sounds like fear-mongering to excuse the exploitation that the NCAA has gotten away with for so long and I don’t buy it for a second. Neither do most people.

This accusation from the guy virtue signalling by casually throwing around the terms oppression, exploitation, servitude, plantation? 40

[Omniscient]

Ooops, mixed up my Dopers. Apologies, I tried to strike it but missed the edit window.

Nonetheless, I don't think pointing out the risk of unintended consequences qualifies as fear-mongering. Free Agency in professional sports did have a massive effect on those industries. Whether it is a net positive or negative can be debated, but it was in fact a colossal change. I'm predicting this will have an even bigger impact....maybe for the better, but I think a lot of what makes college sports generally popular will be gone. We don't know what will replace it. 41

[Atamasama]

Originally Posted by Omniscient

Ooops, mixed up my Dopers. Apologies, I tried to strike it but missed the edit window.

Nonetheless, I don't think pointing out the risk of unintended consequences qualifies as fear-mongering. Free Agency in professional sports did have a massive effect on those industries. Whether it is a net positive or negative can be debated, but it was in fact a colossal change. I'm predicting this will have an even bigger impact....maybe for the better, but I think a lot of what makes college sports generally popular will be gone. We don't know what will replace it.

Yeah it’s possible things will get worse. Things can always get worse! TM

But things aren’t great now and I don’t think there’s any certainty they’ll get worse. And the idea that the college sports industry might suffer doesn’t really cause many people to shed a tear. It’s like arguing that you can’t enforce wage laws on employers or some companies may go out of business.

And it’s okay if you mix me up with someone else, there are other “A” posters. 42

[Miller]

Originally Posted by Omniscient

This is so reductive. Sure, let's just have groups of 50+ random students buy the gear and hire the refs and take on the liability of playing tackle football. Want to play inter-collegiately, best hire the bus drivers and get hotel rooms too. To hell with any college kid who happens to like the part of the college experience that is going to games, participating in booster squads and pep rallies, and having a cultural touchstone to rally around. Get back in the fucking library!

Sounds good to me. Where do I sign? 43

[Omniscient]

Originally Posted by Atamasama

Yeah it’s possible things will get worse. Things can always get worse! TM

But things aren’t great now and I don’t think there’s any certainty they’ll get worse. And the idea that the college sports industry might suffer doesn’t really cause many people to shed a tear. It’s like arguing that you can’t enforce wage laws on employers or some companies may go out of business.

I challenge the statement that thing's aren't great now. The NCAA is most certainly a flawed and generally fucked up organization, especially in it's upper ranks, yet on balance college athletics still aren't a barren wasteland of pain a suffering like many folks here are implying. The animus towards the NCAA offices and executives seems to be totally clouding the discussion.

Today, there are 150,000 students getting athletic scholarships. Not all are full-rides, but on average kids are getting $20k per year. The full-rides are worth double to triple that at most major schools when you factor in room and board. If you're a 4-year athlete who graduates you're getting the cash equivalent of maybe $200,000. That's real money plus you get an education that comes with a lifetime of increased earnings to boot.

Certainly for some players who are getting featured on ESPN every weekend, that's probably them getting significantly underpaid. But not for most....most aren't generating the equivalent amount of revenue even in the revenue-generating sports like football and basketball. You could say it's a socialized program where everyone gets the same thing in spite of their relative contributions. Calling this "exploitation" is a absurd statement.

There's of course the ancillary cultural benefits to the non-athletes on the campus and community. I'm not sure why these people keep getting derided in this thread. What are they doing wrong? Why would you take so much joy in seeing their preferred mode of entertainment taken away? Maybe you don't value it....but how would you feel about someone gleefully celebrating the loss of a theater program, a music festival or some other beloved event that people care about? Honestly, the tone here is ugly, tribal and bordering on prejudiced.

People are casually attacking people who like college sports simply because a very small percentage of the athletes (who they can't wait shit on for their entitlement and selfishness in almost every other regard) are probably unfairly compensated for their play? WTF?

And it’s okay if you mix me up with someone else, there are other “A” posters.

Probably...but I laid on the snark so better safe than sorry. 44

[Atamasama]

Originally Posted by Omniscient

There's of course the ancillary cultural benefits to the non-athletes on the campus and community. I'm not sure why these people keep getting derided in this thread. What are they doing wrong? Why would you take so much joy in seeing their preferred mode of entertainment taken away? Maybe you don't value it....but how would you feel about someone gleefully celebrating the loss of a theater program, a music festival or some other beloved event that people care about? Honestly, the tone here is ugly, tribal and bordering on prejudiced.

If there was a theater for young people that brought in millions of dollars and the kids weren’t allowed to get a dime because they were student actors, and couldn’t work professionally because they were too young to be professional actors (in an alternate universe), yes I’d celebrate the demise of that system. Why shouldn’t I? 45

[Atamasama]

After thinking about it, I guess there really was a place kind of like that.

Peking Opera School 46

[Omniscient]

Originally Posted by Atamasama

If there was a theater for young people that brought in millions of dollars and the kids weren’t allowed to get a dime because they were student actors, and couldn’t work professionally because they were too young to be professional actors (in an alternate universe), yes I’d celebrate the demise of that system. Why shouldn’t I?

Emphasis mine....that statement is a bald faced lie. 47

[Snowboarder Bo]

No; that statement was a bald-faced hypothetical. 48

[divemaster]

How many dimes are in a full scholarship? 49

[Cheesesteak]

Originally Posted by divemaster

How many dimes are in a full scholarship?

Zero, unless it includes actual dimes, or I can trade it for actual dimes.

The issue isn't so much the 145,000 students toiling in obscurity in return for a valued scholarship. It's the 5,000 students who are playing in front of 100,000 fans, broadcast on national TV, who are at the core of an entertainment product worth billions of dollars. Those students get a scholarship that is devalued due to their athletic commitments, and often their lack of academic skills.

They are used to promote the school and generate revenues, tossed aside when their usefulness is over, and denied the opportunity to generate earnings from their notoriety.

The first two items there are simply business, the last one is selfishness. Selfishness borne out of the enormous amount of control the NCAA and Schools exert over student athletes, far beyond the simple quid pro quo of payment for services rendered. 50