# The SDMB NCAA thread **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Tags:** basketball-nba\ **Created:** [September 14, 2016, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-ncaa-thread/765958 "2016-09-14T19:39:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2019, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-ncaa-thread/765958/61 "2019-09-13T20:29:48Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > I think maybe I’ve done a poor job of explaining myself. Let me try again. > > I think this legislation is intended to address the problem of college athletes not being able to work or otherwise earn money while they’re on the team. As such, I see it as helping a small number of athletes while doing nothing for the majority, and I’d prefer an alternative that would help the majority. > > If that isn’t the intent of this legislation, then I’ve wasted your time and countless pixels of internet usage blathering on and making no sense. You aren’t wasting anyone’s time, **Oak** ; be at ease about that. At the very least, you’re helping me learn more about this bill and maybe consider things I hadn’t before. If you weren’t someone who is able to make cogent arguments and take new information into account you might be wasting time but I don’t recall you being that type of person. I’ve read the bill that passed the state Assembly a few times now, and it seems to only authorize players to make money from their “name, image or likeness” and to secure an agent for those purposes. I’m not sure it would enable an athlete to get a job at a car dealership or at a shoe store etc., and if it doesn’t then I would agree that is a problem. BUT I am fully okay with the things the bill does clearly authorize being authorized. ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2019, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-ncaa-thread/765958/62 "2019-09-13T21:38:53Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > I think maybe I’ve done a poor job of explaining myself. Let me try again. > > I think this legislation is intended to address the problem of college athletes not being able to work or otherwise earn money while they’re on the team. As such, I see it as helping a small number of athletes while doing nothing for the majority, and I’d prefer an alternative that would help the majority. > > If that isn’t the intent of this legislation, then I’ve wasted your time and countless pixels of internet usage blathering on and making no sense. I don’t think this is intended to fix the problem of having college athletes making money for their school and yet being unpaid, basically serving as free labor. That’s a bigger issue that’s more complicated. It’s just trying to open up a way for some athletes to make money indirectly from their college sports career. Think of it in terms of professional sports. The top tier of talent gets endorsement deals and makes money they way, they could even make more money from endorsements than their actual salary. Not all pro athletes make money that way, in fact the vast majority don’t. If there was a problem with the way player-team contracts were being handled, a law involving endorsements would have very little effect on those contract problems, and would probably do nothing to fix them. Yet that doesn’t mean that such a law isn’t still useful. To use a crude metaphor, when your car needs an oil change and tire rotation you don’t skip filling the gas tank. Just because a solution won’t fix all problems, or even the biggest problems, that doesn’t mean it’s not worth pursuing. As long as that solution doesn’t interfere with fixing the bigger ones. In this case I don’t think it will. Your concerns about this not helping most college athletes are exactly why it won’t get in the way of finding a solution for compensating players for their work. The NCAA isn’t going to be able to point to endorsements (assuming they eventually allow them across all of their schools) and declare that students are now compensated, precisely because the vast majority of athletes still won’t be. There are other efforts along those lines aside from this bill, with some recent success: > **[NCAA athletes could now receive more compensation, but with limits](https://www.vox.com/2019/3/10/18258945/ncaa-athletes-paid-court-ruling)** > > A federal court ruled on Friday that the association could not cap the education-related scholarship packages that schools offer students. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2019, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-ncaa-thread/765958/63 "2019-09-16T15:16:43Z")
There was an interesting editorial in the LA Times over the weekend: [NCAA’s argument against Fair Pay for Play has no merit and Week 3 mismatches prove it](https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2019-09-14/ncaa-competitive-balance-argument-fair-pay-to-play-law-california-gavin-newsom) > [@](#): > > The NCAA’s contention is that if programs or boosters could pay players their free-market value, the top talent would end up at the same schools. What the NCAA neglected to mention is that there already is no competitive balance in college football. > > Newsom shouldn’t entertain this argument. The NCAA is a cartel that fixes the price of its labor at the cost of a college education plus living expenses. The governor could find economists lining up at the steps of the capital who would tell him that cartels are more likely to be against competition than for it. > > In a sport with real balance, Saturday’s slate would have been packed with potential upsets — although, the idea of an “upset” is based upon there not being a level playing field. > > Four of the top six teams in the country played road games against fellow Power Five schools. No. 1 Clemson at Syracuse, No. 2 Alabama at South Carolina, No. 5 Oklahoma at UCLA and No. 6 Ohio State at Indiana all were set up to be titanic struggles in the NCAA’s fantasy world. > > To get the day started, the Buckeyes smoked the Hoosiers 51-10. Then, the Crimson Tide ran away from the Gamecocks 47-23, as star quarterback Tua Tagovailoa had career highs for completions (28), passing yards (444) and touchdown passes (five). Later, Clemson and Oklahoma got up early and rolled the Orange and the Bruins, respectively. > > The combined score of those four potentially marquee games? 187-53. > > This is college football today, and the idea that the landscape could become any more uneven because the players get a cut of the hundreds of millions of dollars they’re bringing in for the schools is ridiculous. If that’s the NCAA’s best argument, it should stop talking. (It won’t.) ---
**Author:** ![That\_Don\_Guy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/that_don_guy/32/538_2.png) [@That\_Don\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/That_Don_Guy)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2019, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-ncaa-thread/765958/64 "2019-09-16T20:07:15Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > There was an interesting editorial in the LA Times over the weekend: > > > [@](#): > > > > The NCAA’s contention is that if programs or boosters could pay players their free-market value, the top talent would end up at the same schools. What the NCAA neglected to mention is that there already is no competitive balance in college football. The NCAA’s “argument” is, if anyone is paid to play, then they stop becoming student-athletes and start becoming athletes who may or may not be bona fide students. No, I don’t think a one-and-done basketball player has any intention of being a serious student, [and neither does Mark Emmert](https://www.si.com/college-basketball/2016/11/03/ncaa-mark-emmert-nba-draft-rules). If there is some “universal” agreement as to athletes being compensated for licensing themselves, the NCAA might accept it. The problem is, trying to implement it without the people doing the paying being “rewarded” by the schools in question. (A school wants to pay a basketball recruit $100,000 for a season? Not a chance. A shoe company wants to pay the same recruit $100,000 to use him in ads? Nothing wrong with that, right? And if the school “just happens” to pay the shoe company an extra, oh, I don’t know, how about, say, somewhere around $100,000 “as a bonus,” well, that’s just business, right?) Remember that the NCAA has 1107 schools - not just the 80 or so that make up the “Power 5” plus Notre Dame and a handful of men’s basketball power teams - and it has to look at the best interests of all of them. However, don’t expect very many athletes outside of these schools’ football and men’s basketball players to be paid. Besides - if any school does want to pay players, it has to keep four words in mind: Title. Nine. Still. Exists. Or do the top two basketball schools in the country become the ones that don’t have to worry about that sort of thing, as there aren’t enough women there to have women’s sports - VMI and The Citadel? ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Wiggler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/red_wiggler/32/13190_2.png) [@Red\_Wiggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Wiggler)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2019, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-ncaa-thread/765958/65 "2019-09-16T20:31:56Z")
Don, those are just invented problems by the people who don’t wish to have their applecarts upset. Every other industry in the western world has figured out how to compensate talented people performing a valuable service. The schools’ supporters, along with their athletic departments, will figure out how to compete for and pay the athletes when this revolution succeeds. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2019, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-ncaa-thread/765958/66 "2019-09-17T15:06:40Z")
[A charming story from FSU country:](https://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/florida-state-seminoles/os-sp-fsu-lemonade-willie-taggart-0917-20190916-xtmh5w7pgrf3zig2xs6aif5xju-story.html) A 4-year-old Tallahassee boy is selling lemonade to raise money to buy out Willie Taggart’s contract. ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2019, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-ncaa-thread/765958/67 "2019-09-17T15:17:30Z")
> [@That\_Don\_Guy](#): > > If there is some “universal” agreement as to athletes being compensated for licensing themselves, the NCAA might accept it. The problem is, trying to implement it without the people doing the paying being “rewarded” by the schools in question. (A school wants to pay a basketball recruit $100,000 for a season? Not a chance. A shoe company wants to pay the same recruit $100,000 to use him in ads? Nothing wrong with that, right? And if the school “just happens” to pay the shoe company an extra, oh, I don’t know, how about, say, somewhere around $100,000 “as a bonus,” well, that’s just business, right?) But that sort of wink-wink, nudge-nudge deal would be a rules violation. What’s to stop them from doing it right now? It’s a rules violation. I don’t see how allowing the endorsement changes things that much. Either way, the school paying the kid isn’t allowed. If a school is going to be dirty and secretly pay athletes, they’re going to be dirty and secretly pay athletes. You’re essentially arguing that allowing legitimate businesses to exist will enable organized crime to launder money, so in order to fight organized crime we should disallow legitimate businesses. That’s not a great argument. ---
**Author:** ![That\_Don\_Guy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/that_don_guy/32/538_2.png) [@That\_Don\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/That_Don_Guy)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2019, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-ncaa-thread/765958/68 "2019-09-17T18:28:08Z")
> [@Red\_Wiggler](#): > > Every other industry in the western world has figured out how to compensate talented people performing a valuable service. “Every other industry in the western world” doesn’t accept federal funds, which, as a condition for this, require the industries in question not to discriminate on the basis of gender - i.e. you’re not paying your male athletes more than your female ones. Never mind how much money each one brings in. > [@Atamasama](#): > > But that sort of wink-wink, nudge-nudge deal would be a rules violation. What’s to stop them from doing it right now? It’s a rules violation. I don’t see how allowing the endorsement changes things that much. Either way, the school paying the kid isn’t allowed. Exactly - that was my point; the NCAA has to figure out a way to make sure there’s no link between the people/endorsements paying for the licensing/marketing and the schools themselves before it tries to make any rules that apply to all of the schools. ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2019, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-ncaa-thread/765958/69 "2019-09-17T18:39:01Z")
> [@That\_Don\_Guy](#): > > Exactly - that was my point; the NCAA has to figure out a way to make sure there’s no link between the people/endorsements paying for the licensing/marketing and the schools themselves before it tries to make any rules that apply to all of the schools. Those are pretty standard conflict of interest rules. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2019, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-ncaa-thread/765958/70 "2019-09-17T19:16:11Z")
Thanks, Pac 12 officials, for fucking up the end of the MSU-ASU game. There needs to be a rule to require neutral conference officials for non-conference games. MSU got jobbed by the refs all game long. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Wiggler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/red_wiggler/32/13190_2.png) [@Red\_Wiggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Wiggler)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2019, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-ncaa-thread/765958/71 "2019-09-17T19:19:07Z")
> [@That\_Don\_Guy](#): > > “Every other industry in the western world” doesn’t accept federal funds, which, as a condition for this, require the industries in question not to discriminate on the basis of gender - i.e. you’re not paying your male athletes more than your female ones. Never mind how much money each one brings in. We don’t really know if that’s true to the extent some are concerned it may be. And I won’t have the Title IX discussion today because it’s a sideshow to the real issue – which is schools conspiring to fix the amount of their offers to student athletes and illegally restricting those students from maximizing their commercial liberties. Sure, schools are gonna get involved, heavily involved, in influencing supporters on how they spend their funds for talents. This is a good thing. But Title IX concerns are just an excuse used by people who don’t want this to happen for other reasons. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2019, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-ncaa-thread/765958/72 "2019-09-17T19:23:56Z")
Aye; invoking Title IX is a distraction. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Wiggler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/red_wiggler/32/13190_2.png) [@Red\_Wiggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Wiggler)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2019, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-ncaa-thread/765958/73 "2019-09-18T13:10:22Z")
New York and South Carolina legislatures now also introducing bills similar to California’s. I don’t have much hope for SC doing the right thing, seeing as how it revere’s Dabo’s disturbing marriage of god and footbaw success, but this could be an instance where other blue states join the bandwagon and render the NCAA’s position completely untenable. ---
**Author:** ![That\_Don\_Guy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/that_don_guy/32/538_2.png) [@That\_Don\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/That_Don_Guy)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2019, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-ncaa-thread/765958/74 "2019-09-18T14:32:43Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Aye; invoking Title IX is a distraction. So is talk of the schools outright paying players, if we want to limit the conversation to players having the ability to license themselves. Besides, I’m pretty sure SDMB has had that conversation before, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it has happened multiple times. > [@Red\_Wiggler](#): > > Sure, schools are gonna get involved, heavily involved, in influencing supporters on how they spend their funds for talents. This is a good thing. “A good thing” in what way? Schools would now be buying football teams - which is pretty much the sole reason the NCAA came up with the amateurism rule in the first place. If you do want to allow the schools to get money to the players somehow, I have two solutions: One - create a separate “Division I-P” (“P” for “Professional” or “Paid”), that allows athletes to be paid like any other student employees of a school. The NCAA isn’t that far from that already, as it has a number of bylaws that affect only the “autonomy” (i.e. Power 5) conferences. Two, and this would be my choice because, among other things, it gets rid of both the Title IX and “having to take classes” “problems” - disassociate top-level football and men’s basketball from the schools. The teams can use the school nickname/mascot, colors, and arenas (for the use of which, the teams would pay the schools), but there is no requirement that the players be students of the school in question. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2019, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-ncaa-thread/765958/75 "2019-09-18T14:40:02Z")
> [@That\_Don\_Guy](#): > > So is talk of the schools outright paying players, if we want to limit the conversation to players having the ability to license themselves. Besides, I’m pretty sure SDMB has had that conversation before, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it has happened multiple times. I’m sorry; I didn’t realize the high need to be extremely clear and not rely on context: Invoking Title IX when discussing athletes’ right to make money from their image and/or likeness as laid out in the bill we are discussing is a distraction. Kinda like how bringing up talk of schools outright paying players, which of course circles back to Title IX, is a distraction. ---
**Author:** ![That\_Don\_Guy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/that_don_guy/32/538_2.png) [@That\_Don\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/That_Don_Guy)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2019, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-ncaa-thread/765958/76 "2019-09-18T15:53:45Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > I’m sorry; I didn’t realize the high need to be extremely clear and not rely on context: Invoking Title IX when discussing athletes’ right to make money from their image and/or likeness as laid out in the bill we are discussing is a distraction. > > Kinda like how bringing up talk of schools outright paying players, which of course circles back to Title IX, is a distraction. Again, I agree. However, when discussing allowing players to be compensated for use of their name and likeness, we have to distinguish between legitimate uses - e.g. if EA Sports wants to use the athlete in a video game - and attempts to use “marketing” as _de facto_ pay-for-play. I still say that there has to be a break between the people/companies paying the money and the schools the athletes in question play for. It does not have to be a 100% clean break - in fact, in the case of, say, video games, this may not be possible, as the company not only has to compensate the player for their likeness, but the school for use of its trademarks as well - but you can’t have anybody paying an athlete for endorsement rights subsequently being compensated by the school. ---
**Author:** ![Barkis\_is\_Willin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a183cd/32.png) [@Barkis\_is\_Willin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Barkis_is_Willin)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2019, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-ncaa-thread/765958/77 "2019-09-18T17:24:55Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > … > I’ve read the bill that passed the state Assembly a few times now, and it seems to only authorize players to make money from their “name, image or likeness” and to secure an agent for those purposes. … I haven’t read the bill, but I’m glad it allows the athlete to hire an agent. I was afraid it would specify that the university would negotiate on the athlete’s behalf. Is there anything that would prevent this from being the #1 topic of a recruiting battle? For instance, can Nike say, "if you go to USC we’ll give you X but if you go to UCLA we’ll only give you 0.5X? ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2019, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-ncaa-thread/765958/78 "2019-09-18T20:02:36Z")
> [@Barkis\_is\_Willin](#): > > I haven’t read the bill, but I’m glad it allows the athlete to hire an agent. I was afraid it would specify that the university would negotiate on the athlete’s behalf. > > Is there anything that would prevent this from being the #1 topic of a recruiting battle? For instance, can Nike say, "if you go to USC we’ll give you X but if you go to UCLA we’ll only give you 0.5X? ETA: I mis-read your post and on re-read after posting: no, I’m not sure what could prevent that from happening. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Wiggler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/red_wiggler/32/13190_2.png) [@Red\_Wiggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Wiggler)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2019, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-ncaa-thread/765958/79 "2019-09-19T12:37:03Z")
The New York bill contains wording requiring schools to set aside 15% of their sports revenues to be distributed equally to all of the school’s student athletes. Win-win? ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Wiggler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/red_wiggler/32/13190_2.png) [@Red\_Wiggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Wiggler)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2019, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-ncaa-thread/765958/80 "2019-09-19T15:09:46Z")
Incidentally, the math for Syracuse is roughly the following: $90 million in annual athletic revenues X 15% divided by 800 athletes = $16k per athlete per year. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-ncaa-thread/765958.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-sdmb-ncaa-thread/765958.md?page=5)