I’m in agreement with you. Someone brought up the idea and it’s not all that far fetched. Essentially this is what has been going on with the agents. Heck they even called them bad loans. I just don’t see the NCAA paying all athletes, so the Olympic model seems like the most realistic option.
But when agents do it, they see the payback in the near future. College players getting loans well before they are near a pro paycheck is just plain predatory.
Here’s an idea–partially forgivable loans. Give all players in revenue sports a “loan” of a certain size. Those who get drafted and sign with a pro team have to pay it back. Those who don’t get their “loan” forgiven.
This is something Michigan Law School does for first-year public interest internships–gives a $5k stipend for the summer. If you work for a firm the second summer (making $20k or so) you have to pay the $5k back, and if you go public interest again, your “loan” is forgiven.
Lots of details still would need to be worked out but it might be a structural possibility.
You all make a lot of good points but I am not sure Colleges are ready for any system that pays players. There are to many variables to have to maneuver through. Might as well just take sports out of College period. Although that would be a travesty in itself because college life in itself fosters personal and societal growth along with intellectual growth of a person. And those that don’t make it would potentially fall into the black hole of uneducated and direction less citizenship.
It’s money the players deserve based on their ability to make the school/AD money, so any talk of loans is ridiculous. Why should they have to pay back any money that they should be earning? If we are talking about a way to loan or “loan” players money, we are acknowledging that they deserve that money in some capacity. Just pay the players.
They’ve found a way to pay coaches and ADs millions of dollars, as well as upgrade facilities to an elite level. They can find a way to pay players. Saying they’re not ready for such a system is just an excuse for not trying.
I feel like Title 9 makes it virtually impossible to pay players in only revenue generating sports. The only way to legally accomplish this would be to split basketball and football from the NCAA.
We don’t even if Title IX would have to be dealt with. Title IX is about equal access and opportunity. That’s why scholarships have to be generally equal. That doesn’t mean a system can’t be made where you don’t have to deal with athletes in non revenue sports. But I think schools are silly not to put more marketing and promotion into women’s sports as they can be money makers when done right.
Spin off the revenue sports into club teams. No title 9 issues.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. I can’t believe a lot of women’s college programs, in any sport, could be profitable. Of course there are outliers, but I just don’t see it.
I want to say about five to seven years ago, the NCAA came out and said they wanted schools to limited coaches’ salaries in part because of all the issues that are coming up now. Then Alabama gave Nick Saban a monster raise and laughed in the NCAA’s face. The NCAA has no jurisdiction when it comes to that stuff. College football doesn’t even have a NCAA championship.
Title IX is something each individual school has to follow. It’s not really an NCAA issue and doesn’t just apply to NCAA sports.
I do not see it legal to limit coaches salary
Except a handful which is blocked by NBA’s age limit to enter the league, most of the players would’ve make much less than their athletic scholarship worth if they want to play minor league basketball. Just see how much minor league baseball and hockey earn. They always have choice to play overseas if they choose, as Laval Ball is doing with his kids. Their “perceived” value can only be realized on the NCAA platform. It is a contract those players are willingly choose to enter, they can take their talent anywhere else if they feel mistreated and I bet the universities will not suffer a bit.
The outliers are profitable because of culture. It doesn’t happen overnight. But if you treat women’s basketball like you do the mens (looking at you Big Ten, scheduling the mens and womens tourneys at the same time) from the ground up, it changes. Women’s sports are not often profitable because they’re not treated equally and are decades behind in cultural capital and coverage.
I’m not sure if this has been discussed earlier, but in my opinion instead of focusing on paying players, the first step needs to be giving players more rights.
I.E. free to transfer without restrictions if their coach leaves, no conference/school restrictions if you choose to transfer freely, etc.
Cross that bridge first before paying players. That’s already crooked to begin with.
People on academic scholarships don’t make money for the university. Yet they still give them out. Scholarship values are irrelevant IMO.
Would the NCAA as an organization make as much money as it does if it were run as a minor league organization, which is essentially what it’s become? Not even close. The NCAA has made billions because of its affiliation with colleges. Using your same logic, would Coach K get the same money coaching the Grand Rapids Drive? Of course not. So while your statement is true, the premise of it is flawed. The NCAA brings in billions of dollars and therefore the employees get compensated quite well. No minor league system will ever compare to the NCAA in that way.
They would make less under the current structure because the NCAA schools are the 2nd most profitable league and the domestic 3rd-tier league is the G-League. If they could be paid, they’d go to the highest bidding school, which as we already see from the black market, can afford to pay more than a scholarship and more than the G-League.
Agree with everything you said. NCAA’s success largely lives on its member schools’ brands. Just don’t see what are our differences.