NCAA: It's about to get exciting! (or maybe not)

[Lorini]

"The high court (Supreme Court) ruled that NCAA limits on the education-related benefits that colleges can offer athletes who play Division I basketball and football can’t be enforced."

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/ ... reme-court

Which basically means that the universities can entice recruits with benefits.

What do you think this means for college Div 1 sports? It's certainly a win for the athletes! And I fundamentally agree with student athlete compensation. What I'm concerned about is that the schools with the deepest pockets (instead of perhaps the best coaches, or (!) the best educational opportunities) will get the best recruits.

But it was long overdue, and at the end of the day, we as fans will have to adjust.

[Skinypupy]

It's certainly a win for the athletes at programs with massive athletic budgets and significant national exposure!

FTFY

And I fundamentally agree with student athlete compensation. What I'm concerned about is that the schools with the deepest pockets (instead of perhaps the best coaches, or (!) the best educational opportunities) will get the best recruits.

But it was long overdue, and at the end of the day, we as fans will have to adjust.

I'm generally in favor of this, but I fully agree that it's going to only widen the gap between the "haves" and the "have-nots" in college sports. Being a fan of one of the borderline "haves" schools (Utah is in the P5 club, but certainly doesn't have the resources of a Michigan or a USC), it's likely that us second-tier schools simply won't be able to keep up with the additional exposure, financial, and other benefits athletes can get at the bigger schools that have boosters with deeper pockets.

I want athletes to see additional benefits from their efforts, but I'm afraid it could have some very nasty side effects.

[LawBeefaroni]

What are "education related benefits"?

From the article:

The decision upheld a pair of modest rulings by judges in California who struck down the NCAA’s limits on extra benefits for football and basketball players, such as computers or scholarships for graduate study.

Like Div I athletes ever lack for computers.

[ImLawBoy]

I haven't read the decision, but from the chatter I've seen about it the direct impact seems like it will be pretty small. To LB's point, a laptop is probably not going to tip a 5 star recruit from Utah to Alabama. I'm sure some programs will try to push the limits, but it's not like they're going to be able to claim that a car is an educational benefit.

The key is that the court pretty clearly laid out that the NCAA's model is busted and won't stand up to scrutiny. It was a warning that the NCAA better figure something out quickly or the court is going to crush their view of amateurism. There will of course be unintended consequences and competition may suffer. Who knows? Maybe only Alabama, Clemson, and OSU will consistently compete for national titles in football under this brave new world.

[McNutt]

How would flat out paying athletes work? Would there be a requirement that the amounts paid to males equal the amounts paid to females, or would Title IX not apply?

[Pyperkub]

It's certainly a win for the athletes at programs with massive athletic budgets and significant national exposure!

FTFY

And I fundamentally agree with student athlete compensation. What I'm concerned about is that the schools with the deepest pockets (instead of perhaps the best coaches, or (!) the best educational opportunities) will get the best recruits.

But it was long overdue, and at the end of the day, we as fans will have to adjust.

I'm generally in favor of this, but I fully agree that it's going to only widen the gap between the "haves" and the "have-nots" in college sports. Being a fan of one of the borderline "haves" schools (Utah is in the P5 club, but certainly doesn't have the resources of a Michigan or a USC), it's likely that us second-tier schools simply won't be able to keep up with the additional exposure, financial, and other benefits athletes can get at the bigger schools that have boosters with deeper pockets.

I want athletes to see additional benefits from their efforts, but I'm afraid it could have some very nasty side effects.

I am 100% not in favor of anything resembling pay-for-performance for College Athletes. If they want to get paid, go pro (and if their sport doesn't allow it, tough luck - talk to them, not the NCAA).

However, given all the rest of the money flowing into Colleges (football) and the NCAA (basketball, other sports) pockets, I think the disparities are horrendous. The fix - make coaches/coaching staffs faculty and pay them like faculty. Require that Athletic income and donations other than standard athletic scholarships and stipends go to the general academic funds for all students.

Unforeseen consequences I see from pay for performance and other player-specific benefits:

The sports gossip network (aka ESPN) will now not only be reporting on Aaron Rodgers contract with the Packers EVERY SINGLE DAY, but also every single college athlete in the news. What's their latest contract? Are they holding out, threatening to transfer unless they get more money?

How long until the High School players who ESPN is already televising games for want the same?

[Lorini]

We'll see what happens in the courts, because I suspect that the college players will keep suing until they are given a salary. I don't support that per se; but they do need to be given a decent living allowance, and perhaps transportation and other support. When that basketball player was homeless, it gave the whole situation a very bad look.

[Scuzz]

What are "education related benefits"?

From the article:

The decision upheld a pair of modest rulings by judges in California who struck down the NCAA’s limits on extra benefits for football and basketball players, such as computers or scholarships for graduate study.

Like Div I athletes ever lack for computers.

One article I read on this asked whether an athlete who lived off campus might not really need that car a booster or the school wants to give him. There did seem to be some logical limitations to what may qualify. Also the NCAA is fighting to get states to pass individual laws on this before the end of this month if I remember because several states, mainly in the south, have already passed their versions of NIL (I think that is the abbreviation) laws.

[Scuzz]

How would flat out paying athletes work? Would there be a requirement that the amounts paid to males equal the amounts paid to females, or would Title IX not apply?

I don't think you would see any athlete get rich from his college pay, but if boosters are free to add to the pie you could see players paid by position and it could go around Title 9. Or it could be something simple like increasing their stipend. Either way, the rich will benefit the most from such changes.

[Lorini]

"As Kavanaugh writes, “the NCAA’s business model would be flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America.” Among other things, the NCAA “controls the market for college athletes;” it “concedes that its compensation rules set the price of student athlete labor at a below-market rate”; and it “recognizes that student athletes currently have no meaningful ability to negotiate with the NCAA over the compensation rules.”

That’s exactly the sort of iron grip over pricing that antitrust laws are supposed to prevent.

It remains to be seen whether Kavanaugh’s opinion will someday become the law, but it will likely signal to student-athletes that they should consider filing a new lawsuit challenging the NCAA’s remaining restrictions on compensation."

https://www.vox.com/2021/6/21/22543598/ ... pockethits

Fairly certain those lawsuits are coming. Things were fine when colleges weren't paying coaches $10M a year, but the whole thing has gotten way out of control and needs to be reigned in. Hopefully the final product will still be entertaining and at least somewhat balanced between the universities.

[Pyperkub]

We'll see what happens in the courts, because I suspect that the college players will keep suing until they are given a salary. I don't support that per se; but they do need to be given a decent living allowance, and perhaps transportation and other support. When that basketball player was homeless, it gave the whole situation a very bad look.

It's not just student athletes. Prior to the pandemic, there was a look at regular students who were homeless and trying to get their studies done. Heck, I think even minor league baseball players have this issue, college student athletes probably have it far better than most minor leaguers.

[Pyperkub]

How would flat out paying athletes work? Would there be a requirement that the amounts paid to males equal the amounts paid to females, or would Title IX not apply?

I don't think you would see any athlete get rich from his college pay, but if boosters are free to add to the pie you could see players paid by position and it could go around Title 9. Or it could be something simple like increasing their stipend. Either way, the rich will benefit the most from such changes.

Define rich. I think that for players such as Tua or Cam Newton or Trevor Lawrence, they will be signed by boosters for rather large NIL amounts. Remember that Cam Newton's dad allegedly got over 100k in the recruitment process, and that's without an advertising $$$ returns. Reggie Bush got a house in LoCal, etc.

These boosters shell out millions over the table in coach pay, buildings, coach buyouts, etc. Will they be buying out bad players too? This is going to be ugly. Uglier than College Sports already are. Look at the FBI probe into Adidas basketball, and all the scum trying to glom on to get a cut from these teenagers, and start multiplying. AAU sports and academies such as IMG, which are already essentially corrupt sports tools masquerading as High Schools will get even worse, and more kids like those in Hoop Dreams will be the ones who are far worse off for it.

[stessier]

Hopefully the final product will still be entertaining and at least somewhat balanced between the universities.

Lorini, this is not singling you out, you just said it clearest.

This is my problem with the whole NCAA and why I think it should be burned to the ground. Everyone is concerned with the quality of the product and not whether or not the product should exist in the first place. How about this - all colleges are banned from broadcasting any sporting events. They can, however, sponsor teams that are broadcast, but can not have any control of the team (who is the coach, who the players are, etc). They can be profit participants in the team.

This makes clear the fiction that it matters (or not) if the players have any relationship to the schools beyond what they are paid. The students can go to whatever schools they want during the day and play on their super teams at night. The sponsors will still bring in profit if their teams are good (after expenses of course). Fans get to root for whomever they are sponsoring. Smaller schools can team up to sponsor a team so they can spread around the glory.

[Pyperkub]

Hopefully the final product will still be entertaining and at least somewhat balanced between the universities.

Lorini, this is not singling you out, you just said it clearest.

This is my problem with the whole NCAA and why I think it should be burned to the ground. Everyone is concerned with the quality of the product and not whether or not the product should exist in the first place. How about this - all colleges are banned from broadcasting any sporting events. They can, however, sponsor teams that are broadcast, but can not have any control of the team (who is the coach, who the players are, etc). They can be profit participants in the team.

This makes clear the fiction that it matters (or not) if the players have any relationship to the schools beyond what they are paid. The students can go to whatever schools they want during the day and play on their super teams at night. The sponsors will still bring in profit if their teams are good (after expenses of course). Fans get to root for whomever they are sponsoring. Smaller schools can team up to sponsor a team so they can spread around the glory.

yeah, going to see a LOT of homeless players when they get fired or aren't useful. This is not a good path for a teenager to get on - especially one who was probably coddled all the way up to College and got a substandard education because their athletic ability and potential was the only thing anyone cared about. The problem here *isn't* the NCAA but rather the sports leagues not allowing them to go pro AND supporting them in their personal growth to do so.

The profits *some* athletic departments in the NCAA (a significant minority are profitable) make are an issue, but the larger issue is the professional sports leagues in the USA and their monopolies.

Want to find employment as a football player in America as an 18 year old? Nope, sorry, the NFL doesn't even offer internships for players.

[Lorini]

Hopefully the final product will still be entertaining and at least somewhat balanced between the universities.

Lorini, this is not singling you out, you just said it clearest.

This is my problem with the whole NCAA and why I think it should be burned to the ground. Everyone is concerned with the quality of the product and not whether or not the product should exist in the first place. How about this - all colleges are banned from broadcasting any sporting events. They can, however, sponsor teams that are broadcast, but can not have any control of the team (who is the coach, who the players are, etc). They can be profit participants in the team.

This makes clear the fiction that it matters (or not) if the players have any relationship to the schools beyond what they are paid. The students can go to whatever schools they want during the day and play on their super teams at night. The sponsors will still bring in profit if their teams are good (after expenses of course). Fans get to root for whomever they are sponsoring. Smaller schools can team up to sponsor a team so they can spread around the glory.

All this would do is significantly raise the already astronomical cost of going to college. I get you're coming from, but fans help especially public universities pay the bills. What I'm hoping for is lower paid coaches to compensate for the upcoming compensations to student athletes. Their pay is ridiculous.

[stessier]

Hopefully the final product will still be entertaining and at least somewhat balanced between the universities.

Lorini, this is not singling you out, you just said it clearest.

This is my problem with the whole NCAA and why I think it should be burned to the ground. Everyone is concerned with the quality of the product and not whether or not the product should exist in the first place. How about this - all colleges are banned from broadcasting any sporting events. They can, however, sponsor teams that are broadcast, but can not have any control of the team (who is the coach, who the players are, etc). They can be profit participants in the team.

This makes clear the fiction that it matters (or not) if the players have any relationship to the schools beyond what they are paid. The students can go to whatever schools they want during the day and play on their super teams at night. The sponsors will still bring in profit if their teams are good (after expenses of course). Fans get to root for whomever they are sponsoring. Smaller schools can team up to sponsor a team so they can spread around the glory.

yeah, going to see a LOT of homeless players when they get fired or aren't useful. This is not a good path for a teenager to get on - especially one who was probably coddled all the way up to College and got a substandard education because their athletic ability and potential was the only thing anyone cared about. The problem here *isn't* the NCAA but rather the sports leagues not allowing them to go pro AND supporting them in their personal growth to do so.

The profits *some* athletic departments in the NCAA (a significant minority are profitable) make are an issue, but the larger issue is the professional sports leagues in the USA and their monopolies.

Disagree completely. It's a polite fiction that the players are getting a degree or, if they do, one that helps them after school. Nothing is stopping the school from giving them scholarships if they thing they qualify. Now they just have to qualify based on the things that make them good candidates to graduate.

[stessier]

Hopefully the final product will still be entertaining and at least somewhat balanced between the universities.

Lorini, this is not singling you out, you just said it clearest.

This is my problem with the whole NCAA and why I think it should be burned to the ground. Everyone is concerned with the quality of the product and not whether or not the product should exist in the first place. How about this - all colleges are banned from broadcasting any sporting events. They can, however, sponsor teams that are broadcast, but can not have any control of the team (who is the coach, who the players are, etc). They can be profit participants in the team.

This makes clear the fiction that it matters (or not) if the players have any relationship to the schools beyond what they are paid. The students can go to whatever schools they want during the day and play on their super teams at night. The sponsors will still bring in profit if their teams are good (after expenses of course). Fans get to root for whomever they are sponsoring. Smaller schools can team up to sponsor a team so they can spread around the glory.

All this would do is significantly raise the already astronomical cost of going to college. I get you're coming from, but fans help especially public universities pay the bills. What I'm hoping for is lower paid coaches to compensate for the upcoming compensations to student athletes. Their pay is ridiculous.

Why would it raise costs? No one has to sponsor a team. Spend what you can afford. Or finally focus on academics.

[Lorini]

Because universities get huge TV revenues for showing the games.

All of this money would have to come from somewhere:

University of Texas: $223,879,781
Texas A&M University: $212,748,002
The Ohio State University: $210,548,239
University of Michigan: $197,820,410
University of Georgia: $174,042,482
Penn State University: $164,529,326
University of Alabama: $164,090,889
University of Oklahoma: $163,126,695
University of Florida: $159,706,937
Louisiana State University: $157,787,782
University of Wisconsin: $157,660,107
Florida State University: $152,757,883
Auburn University: $152,455,416
University of Iowa: $151,976,026
University of Kentucky: $150,435,842
University of Tennessee: $143,765,903
University of South Carolina: $140,695,659
Michigan State University: $140,010,865
University of Louisville: $139,955,824
University of Arkansas: $137,497,788

More winning means more fans and more TV coverage which is why the coaches command so much money. $10M is a drop in the bucket compared to the $164M Penn State gets from TV revenue.

Note that these are all public universities; private universities don't have to report income, so big players like Notre Dame and USC aren't listed here.

Source:
https://www.bestcolleges.com/blog/do-co ... ake-money/

[Pyperkub]

And I'll throw out an example here.

A few years back, UCLA signed a 5 star linebacker (Mique Juarez). He didn't see the field as much as a player and a lot of fans got on him.

He just graduated with a degree in Propulsion Engineering from UCLA, one of the top public schools in the world and got a job at SpaceX. He is *actually* a professional Rocket Scientist.

He tweeted that out, and fans were still telling him he should play football instead.

[Scuzz]

How would flat out paying athletes work? Would there be a requirement that the amounts paid to males equal the amounts paid to females, or would Title IX not apply?

I don't think you would see any athlete get rich from his college pay, but if boosters are free to add to the pie you could see players paid by position and it could go around Title 9. Or it could be something simple like increasing their stipend. Either way, the rich will benefit the most from such changes.

Define rich. I think that for players such as Tua or Cam Newton or Trevor Lawrence, they will be signed by boosters for rather large NIL amounts. Remember that Cam Newton's dad allegedly got over 100k in the recruitment process, and that's without an advertising $$$ returns. Reggie Bush got a house in LoCal, etc.

These boosters shell out millions over the table in coach pay, buildings, coach buyouts, etc. Will they be buying out bad players too? This is going to be ugly. Uglier than College Sports already are. Look at the FBI probe into Adidas basketball, and all the scum trying to glom on to get a cut from these teenagers, and start multiplying. AAU sports and academies such as IMG, which are already essentially corrupt sports tools masquerading as High Schools will get even worse, and more kids like those in Hoop Dreams will be the ones who are far worse off for it.

But everything you listed happened when it was an illegal practice. Bring it out into the light and see what happens. I am not sure you will see boosters (assuming they are allowed to do this, although I assume they will be asked by schools for the money to do this) willing to bid up athletes when the process is public. From what I have read that isn't expected. States may still pass laws restricting what "public" schools can do, which is what the NCAA is hoping will happen.

As for your fear of AAU sports, I concur. Basketball more than any sport is seeped in institutional problems and small teams make it worse. But a kid good enough to go pro instead of college will probably go pro, and I could easily see the pros going back to drafting pre-college players if the colleges are going to pay them anyway.

[Scuzz]

Hopefully the final product will still be entertaining and at least somewhat balanced between the universities.

Lorini, this is not singling you out, you just said it clearest.

This is my problem with the whole NCAA and why I think it should be burned to the ground. Everyone is concerned with the quality of the product and not whether or not the product should exist in the first place. How about this - all colleges are banned from broadcasting any sporting events. They can, however, sponsor teams that are broadcast, but can not have any control of the team (who is the coach, who the players are, etc). They can be profit participants in the team.

This makes clear the fiction that it matters (or not) if the players have any relationship to the schools beyond what they are paid. The students can go to whatever schools they want during the day and play on their super teams at night. The sponsors will still bring in profit if their teams are good (after expenses of course). Fans get to root for whomever they are sponsoring. Smaller schools can team up to sponsor a team so they can spread around the glory.

yeah, going to see a LOT of homeless players when they get fired or aren't useful. This is not a good path for a teenager to get on - especially one who was probably coddled all the way up to College and got a substandard education because their athletic ability and potential was the only thing anyone cared about. The problem here *isn't* the NCAA but rather the sports leagues not allowing them to go pro AND supporting them in their personal growth to do so.

The profits *some* athletic departments in the NCAA (a significant minority are profitable) make are an issue, but the larger issue is the professional sports leagues in the USA and their monopolies.

Disagree completely. It's a polite fiction that the players are getting a degree or, if they do, one that helps them after school. Nothing is stopping the school from giving them scholarships if they thing they qualify. Now they just have to qualify based on the things that make them good candidates to graduate.

I doubt the general school population, based on kids who start out as freshmen at a college, graduate at any better rate than athletes do.

[LawBeefaroni]

I doubt the general school population, based on kids who start out as freshmen at a college, graduate at any better rate than athletes do.

DI claims 90% 6-year graduation rate for "athletes" but this includes things like cross country, golf, rowing, etc. I'd be interested to see what it's like by sport.

[Scuzz]

I doubt the general school population, based on kids who start out as freshmen at a college, graduate at any better rate than athletes do.

DI claims 90% 6-year graduation rate for "athletes" but this includes things like cross country, golf, rowing, etc. I'd be interested to see what it's like by sport.

Having volunteered with a college golf team for many years I can tell you based on that experience golfers don't graduate at any kind of high rate. I remember the coach back then raising money on his own for the program so that kids who had lost eligibility and were off any kind of scholarship would have money to stay in school longer to get their degree. That would be a nice feature for all schools and sports to include, money for an additional year to graduate.

[Pyperkub]

I doubt the general school population, based on kids who start out as freshmen at a college, graduate at any better rate than athletes do.

DI claims 90% 6-year graduation rate for "athletes" but this includes things like cross country, golf, rowing, etc. I'd be interested to see what it's like by sport.

They have the Academic progress rate:

The APR, or Academic Progress Rate, holds institutions accountable for the academic progress of their student-athletes through a team-based metric that accounts for the eligibility and retention of each student-athlete for each academic term.

Note that each "Team" gets a rating, and if it goes too low, they are barred from championships, bowl games, etc. AFAIK.

There's also the GPR - Graduation Rate (independent):

This is the first time that the overall football student-athlete GSR has decreased from the previous year since the statistic was first reported in the 2009 bowl-bound report. After a decade of uninterrupted progress, this was a discouraging pause. However, it is worth noting that the current GSR is significantly higher than when the streak started. The overall football student-athlete GSR in 2009 was 65.5, a full 12.5 percentage points below where it is in 2020.

In 2003, the NCAA introduced the APR as part of an academic reform package designed to more accurately measure student-athletes' academic success in addition to increasing graduation rates at member institutions. The APR holds each team accountable for the success of student-athletes in the classroom and their progress toward graduation. Teams are penalized if they fall below the minimum threshold of an APR score of 930, which is the expected graduation rate of 50% of a team's student-athletes. The last time a bowl-eligible team did not meet the minimum APR requirement was four years ago.

[Jeff V]

What are "education related benefits"?

From the article:

The decision upheld a pair of modest rulings by judges in California who struck down the NCAA’s limits on extra benefits for football and basketball players, such as computers or scholarships for graduate study.

Like Div I athletes ever lack for computers.

How else would they get their porn?