PennStateHoops.com Discussion Forum

NCAA Reform (Was: Union Yes)

Wouldn’t it be based on scholarship count, not head count?

You would think so, but I don’t see how Texas comes up with a $6M figure if they are only going by athletes on scholarship.

The pay for using their image might be by head count and the rest prorated by scholarship. It doesn’t really explain how they got that number though.

Texas sponsors 16 sports (if you count track, indoor track, and cross country as one). PSU sponsors 26 (counting the same way and counting the two fencing programs as one sport). Whatever the number is for PSU, it will almost have to be higher than Texas’s.

The sports that PSU has that Texas doesn’t are: Fencing, Ice Hockey (M&W), Gymnastics (M&W), Lacrosse (M&W), Soccer (M), Volleyball (M), Wrestling (M), and Field Hockey (W).

Texas does sponsor women’s crew while PSU doesn’t.

Still a lot of things that have to come together before Texas can start handing out cash though.

New Yorker: Why N.C.A.A. Athletes Shouldn’t Be Paid

This value is again revealed in the fact that many N.C.A.A. teams are vastly more popular than their professional counterparts. My beloved Michigan Wolverines pack the Big House with more than a hundred thousand spectators each football Saturday; the Detroit Lions, meanwhile, do not. (I know, I know—it’s the Lions. That’s why their stadium is smaller.) Minor-league arenas attract even fewer spectators. Fans are not only seeking athletic excellence as such—the biggest and fastest players in descending order. Our connection to the athletes is deeper. These student athletes walk the same halls, have the same professors, and sweat the same midterms that we did, however long ago. At the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, where I once taught, the inscription on the statue of Alma Mater reads, “To thy happy children of the future, those of the past send greetings.” It’s easy to dismiss that sentiment as saccharine, but it gets at an important truth: we are embedded in our cultures and social groups, and we revel in their excellence.

Paying student athletes erodes that association. If a high-school football prodigy reported that he chose Michigan not for its academic quality, tradition, or beautiful campus but because it outbid all other suitors, a connection to the university’s values would be lost. This is not naïve idealism. Auburn fans still bristle at accusations that Cam Newton auctioned them his services; prideful Michigan fans still smart over the sanctions surrounding Chris Webber, and over stinging comments intimating that he might just as well have attended a rival school. These episodes reveal what happens when college sports are reduced to a market; that this occurs all too often already is no reason to surrender to it.

and …

At sports bars, when I hear people dismiss these (or other) ideas for preserving college amateurism, I realize that it’s not simply a question of their being overwhelmed by the practical difficulties involved. It is, rather, another manifestation of that corrosive American belief that anything that has value must also have a price. The recent ruling, though, hints at a path ahead, a way to cheer for our student athletes without being held hostage to money, exploitation, racism, or cynicism.

Seems a simplistic view on the issue. Recruits already pick schools for non-academic reasons, especially as you start to straddle the Power 5/non-power 5 (or, low/mid/high major) school lines. Even the stipend/COA dollar differences will influence some decisions, but no one will challenge the decision as one that will disconnect the recruit from the “university’s values.”

I haven’t seen this addressed before, but how do these laws anticipate:

Top 25 HS recruit X is considering schools A, B and C, and his preference (all things being equal) are for school C. Let’s not get into the vagaries of licensing deals and assume that everyone pays a similar fee - $5 - per shirt sold.

  • School A is a blue blood with a huge booster base, and its boosters create T-shirts with X’s likeness and sell 7000 of them to boosters for $40 each.
  • School B has no history, but its single booster creates T-shirts with X’s likeness and sells 100,000 of them to its richest alumnus for the cost of making the shirt ($1-2 each, plus the $5 licensing fee).
  • School C is a middle-of-the-pack program and its boosters sell 250 shirts for $10 each. (The school’s boosters recently sold 22,000 shirts with a football recruit’s likeness.)

Scenarios for A and C kind of reflect what’s going on now - the rich get richer. Scenario B for the next Zion Williamson gets dicey.

Perhaps the reason it doesn’t seem to be discussed in because the answer is very simple - the next Zion Williamson should get whatever he can.

In order for this to work (meaning, allow those whose NIL is actually marketable to profit only), there have to be some limits, not open ended like California’s proposal. Florida’s proposal is a little better.

I say
-No endorsement deals until after one’s freshman year. Recruits have no NIL to market, even 5-stars.
-All endorsement deals must be disclosed publicly (Florida’s proposal has them disclosed to the school). Maybe not the terms of the deal, but the fact the deal exists.
-All entities providing endorsement deals need some level of proof of legitimacy. Shell companies in the Caymans shouldn’t be paying players.
-Schools deserve a little kick back too. A certain amount of the endorsement (even if only when the income reaches a certain cap) can be taxed and collected by the school for some specific, yet TBD, purpose.

1 Like

It seems weird to me to restrict what class of students can receive endorsements. If you do that, then that basically cancels out the one and done basketball players, which I’m assuming is in part why these proposals are happening now.

The only thing I would really want to see is a public disclosure of what endorsements each athlete has.

The biggest problem I have with this is I feel like it’s going to be very discriminatory and will not impact like 99.9% of athletes. It’s a welcomed change whenever it goes through, but I’m not sure how these pieces of legislation are going to change anything regarding non-profit sports. If anything, I could see those sports becoming further de-incentivized by programs, especially if you add a caveat like “you also have to donate to the school of the athlete’s endorsement.”

If you let recruits get paid, then you’re legalizing the bag man and these won’t be true NIL endorsements, but recruiting bribes to attend a school.

You do that, game over, forget about college athletics.

Do you somehow not think that’s going to be a recruiting tool that is going to be used with a wire transfer ready to hit their account whenever it is allowed? Also, why is it a bad thing for a recruit to make money? We aren’t even talking about taking money out of the NCAA’s or school’s pockets, we’re just putting money they weren’t getting anyway into a student’s pockets. It’s hardly going to kill college athletics.

A recruit has no marketable likeness. No one outside of hard core fans know who the top recruits are. Any payments made to them under the guise of this new rule are purely to benefit the school, not the recruit and surely not the entity paying the money. That’s not at all what any of these proposed laws are intended to accomplish, yet as written that’s how they’d primarily be used.

I am talking about the extreme case - where Pat Chambers talks Terry Pegula into buying 100,000 Zion Williamson t-shirts at $15, with a $10 dollar per licensing fee going to Zion.

How is that kind of laundering not going to take place? It looks like NIL, but it’s really a $1 million bag.

All endorsement deals would have to be registered at some level so there can be no laundering like that

One scenario is that the big sponsors now (like Nike, UA, etc) will start cutting the deals to individual schools back, and instead provide those funds directly to those athletes at those schools. It’s very possible that the money that a company provides AT a particular school doesn’t even change (Nike still gives $x towards Duke), the difference is instead of it all going to the school, only a small portion is given, and the rest is used to the sign the individual players.

It would make sense for them to cut out the middle man.

That scenario would be fine since a Nike is only going to sponsor the big time stars. But I don’t think it’d happen that easily since those school contracts are multi-year and would long outlive any player that they’d sponsor.

That’s just simply not true.

It wouldn’t take much of a cut to Nike’s check to Duke to funnel that amount to the 4 star recruits that Coach K wants to bring in order to sweeten the pot enough to discourage that 4 star kid from signing with his hometown college that doesn’t have the benefit of the big $$ from the shoe guys.

In effect the 5 star guys like Zion who would attract all the attention brings more sponsor $ to the school he’s at and that money is used to build a better roster of supporting players.

Good luck to schools like PSU ever landing even one of those 4 star guys without shoe $. Then again, it’s not like we have much of a chance now :frowning:

Jay makes some valid points

http://www.statecollege.com/news/columns/a-beginners-guide-to-exploiting-californias-ncaa-legislation,1481279/