The SDMB NCAA thread

Probably for the same reason the major professional sports leagues have a draft - otherwise, you end up with a handful of haves keeping the have-nots out of the spotlight.

“You mean, like how it works now?”
There are 65 schools in the Power 5 conferences and Notre Dame. You want it reduced to something like 20?

One problem is, even without the schools being involved, enough schools have enough alumni money that there’s no real way to stop a bidding war.

Wild Wild West in terms of things like “cattle rustling” - and there will be plenty of player poaching if the money is there…and again, short of putting restrictions on player income, there isn’t much that anyone will be able to do about it even with the new rules the NCAA is starting to adopt in Divisions II and III.

Sorry; not interested in helping out the teams with keeping their costs low and their monopoly intact.

I don’t care. I don’t care if there are 165 or 6.5 as long as the players are free to market themselves and their abilities like any other person in any other profession.

Welcome to capitalism.

The very fact that you call it “player poaching” exposes the notion at the very heart of the NCAA’s model: that the players are property and are rightly owned by the schools.

Fuck that; that’s despicable.

What Bo said. If the schools don’t want a wild west, or what everyone else in the country considers “normal business,” then they can help the athletes unionize and negotiate terms with them. Until then they can stick their wage fixing cartel where the sun don’t shine.

Mark Emmert is under the impression that the athletes are students first and employees of the school second. You seem to be under the impression that it should be the other way around - if, in fact, they should even have to be students. The minute this is the case, it stops being “college” football.

If it was up to me, there really would be, say, 15 teams that play a single round-robin with a playoff system, that was totally separated from the schools; this would not only remove the players from any compensation restrictions, but the teams wouldn’t have to worry about Title IX. Of course, the other schools would whine because their TV money would dry up, but that’s their problem.

No he’s not. He just has to say that in public and pretend to believe it.

Mark Emmert is well aware that the players are currently considered property, that any crack in the system is probably fatal, and that his job his to try to prevent that from happening lest he lose his cushy job*.

  • Worth somewhere between $2.7 and $4 million annually depending on the year. He apparently has generously accepted a pay cut this year because COVID.

Zak already gave you one good point of refutation, but I’ll give you more because you have my position all wrong. The athletes are people first, with all the rights that people have, including the right to market themselves and their abilities to the employer of their choice: that’s my position.

Whether or not they want to be students is up to them. Frankly, I think I’d rather make a shitload of money at 18 and then have plenty of dough to go back to school in ten or twelve years after my athletic career was over but every athlete should be able to make their own choices.

And no, I don’t give a flying fuck about “college football” as an institution anymore than I would give a fuck about any other institution that was built on the exploited backs of a vulnerable population.

The schools can certainly require that the athletic programs are restricted to participation only by students. They should not, however, be allowed to restrict their students’ incomes when they participate in extracurricular activities. That’s the only relevant issue here.

The NCAA is still trying to get the federal government to write laws that exclude them from anti-trust laws, etc.

Hey, Senator Burr: restraint of trade and not allowing people to profit from their efforts are un-American, you un-American piece of shit.

If someone is still opposed to college athletes enjoying the same economic liberties that every other American enjoys, then someone needs to take a good look at their own belief systems.

Here’s the “quick version” of the Gonzalez Name/Image/Likeness bill introduced in the House of Representatives on 9/24:

No school or athletic organization (e.g. NCAA) can ban someone from participating in college sports just because they have endorsement deals or have hired an agent to handle their endorsement deals. (Apparently, hiring an agent to deal with pro sports teams would still not be allowed.) However, the athlete can be banned by the school or organization from endorsing any of the following: tobacco, vaping/E-cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana (including dispensaries), “adult services,” and gambling sites/sportsbooks/casinos. Also, the athlete can be prevented from wearing any logo of an endorsed item/service while actually in a game or “university-sponsored event.”

No state may make or enforce its own name/image/likeness laws.

Schools are banned from paying their own athletes for endorsement deals, but at the same time, they cannot threaten to remove or reduce the scholarship of any athlete that accepts an endorsement deal from anyone.

A “booster” (defined as a person or organization that “provides substantial financial assistance or services” to the school or promotes the team “for its own financial interest”) may not offer any athlete or recruit anything of value in order to get the athlete to go to/stay at the school.

There’s something about a 13-member panel appointed by Congress, but it doesn’t seem to do very much other than make reports that suggest, among other things, more categories of banned items for endorsements.

I don’t think this is going to get out of committee; there just isn’t time (it would have to be passed by both the House and Senate by January 2). However, Sports Illustrated reports that there are a number of other bills being worked on; I am guessing these will be introduced when the new Congress starts in early January. Somebody feels that something needs to be done before Florida’s law takes effect on July 1.