One reason I always preferred NCAA basketball to the NBA, the latter of which I have not watched in years, is that the name on the front of the jersey, unlike the NBA, mattered more than the name on the back. Ultimately, Zion Williamson is merely a footnote in college basketball history, regardless of the stardom he may go on to enjoy in the NBA.
University professors and administrators make money from subsidies on the backs of taxpayers and students, the latter of whom, upon graduation, are often left with massive debt merely for seeking a post-secondary education. There is little outcry about this.
The elite of the elite among college basketball players are given a free education (which they can value or not as they choose) and (luxury, by university living standards) housing, a world-class strength and conditioning regimen, and a platform to showcase their talents for the NBA. Sort of like an apprenticeship, another option for which currently is playing professionally outside the NBA for a year before entering the draft.
I hate the NBA’s one-and-done rule, and think high school players good enough to go straight to the NBA should be able to do so.
The NCAA is very good at cracking down on the most minor of infractions with excessive punishments, while ignoring widespread violations of the worst kind. If the NCAA would enforce its own rules, schools and their athletic departments could be held to account for foul play, as they should be.
Perhaps its time the organization in Indianapolis should itself be subject to investigation by the Federal Bureau of Intimidation.
Why is this supposed bidding war that would come from a player selling his likeness to EA sports or a local car dealer, which would be out in the open and taxable, any worse than the illegal and untraceable secret bidding war that goes on now?
IDon’t you think Nike would prefer to hand Zion a $50 million shoe contract during his freshman season at Duke? If they could do the same deal for Emoni Bates right now, and do it out in the open,I bet they would.
Look at marijuana cultivation, production and sales. In the states that have legalized it, I’ll bet the production has increased by a factor of ten, if not higher.
Sure, some kids are getting paid under the table right now, but every once in awhile we hear about kids selling their autographs (or Gold Pants) and that has led to eligibility problems (and to Jim Tressel getting fired). There would be so much more of this if it were expressly permitted by the rules.
A bidding war from any national company would be no problem. I was more speaking to if it essentially becomes an open bidding war for a top player that wouldn’t be a fun situation necessarily. I’m pro players getting paid.
Anyway I don’t think local car dealerships are gonna be dropping massive bucks to make a recruit go to a school. I think they would look to bring in some players for a crappy commercial though, and the players will get some cash. Win win
Because the leadership in those companies are fans/alumni, too. Nike, of course, would love top guys to go to Oregon, but short of that I bet they wouldn’t mind if a player attended a school with a Nike contract. Funneling AAU players to schools based on shoe contracts already happens. Want to be in our awesome Under Armor commercial? Great, have I got a school for you!
I’m amused by the idea that letting players accept money for anything from people who are already quite willing to break rules, risk getting their teams into trouble, and sometimes break the law will be a simple solution to anything.
I’m in favor of players being able to profit from their likeness in the same way pros can. If boosters want to arrange a signing bonus, and/or pay annual salaries for an incoming freshman, let them make it a formal contract and I think that’s fine. The players would be paid just for participating in the sport, no outside obligations. Having schools involved might pose Title IX issues so that needs to be worked out.
Shoe contracts, legitimate promotional work should be allowed too. Put everything in writing and have it submitted, either to the school or the NCAA. I’d feel more comfortable if the boosters were registered somehow.
People are going to try to find ways to make a profit off of these players. College and high school players are more vulnerable to being taken advantage than the pros with substantial contracts. What may happen when those boosters start paying players at rival schools? What’s to stop gamblers from doing it too? We have handlers now. It could be more of a problem when payments are out in the open. Do we like the idea of someone signing contracts with the families of 8th graders. Giving then some money now in exchange for what they get for steering the player to a school later?
Doesn’t solve the problem of players getting screwed out of earning potential. Someone like Spike Albrecht was never going to have a long pro career. He doesn’t really have the options like you’re presenting them. But he absolutely could have made some money signing autographs or doing a commercial for a local restaurant or something like that. But he wasn’t allowed to for ridiculous reasons. For some people, their highest marketability is when they’re playing in school. They should be allowed to take advantage of that. No other student at the university is threatened with losing their scholarship or an internship because they’re making money outside of their subject area. It’s ridiculous that athletes can’t and I just have no idea why people are okay with that when others are profiting through the same industry.
I wish there were viable minor leagues so players had some more options. But they don’t in every sport. And even if they were, it makes no sense for them not to be able to make some money when someone is willing to pay them.
Started to post something like this (like what swinawer is saying) a few times over the last few days. Players are indeed being exploited, and I think that paying for the use of their likeness(es) makes sense. But are a tiny few players–because that’s what we’re talking about–going to become businessmen now? How wonderfully distracting does that look? What other unsavory types does it bring into the college basketball picture? And–as swinawer says–do we really think this solves any of the innumerable other money-related problems with the game?
Let’s say–without getting too deep in the weeds–schools decide to pay players in the major sports. About twenty schools actually make money in the first place, so how do you proceed from there, especially in any way that’s fair or levels the playing field? And if we’ve got a few primadonnas getting paid large bills at the college level do we stop pretending to treat them equally, as kids, etc. in practice and on campus?
A cynic would say we should give up on any pretence of equality at all, but–in the meantime, as the slipper slope becomes really icy–where are your new bright lines?
Probably in the end we get a couple of super leagues, and they start to make their own new rules. We pretend even less that basketball or football (with a couple of other sports trailing close behind) are anything like amateur pursuits. Perhaps some federal laws about child labor become an issue back down at AAU level?
Why are we pretending this is an amateur pursuit to begin with? Turns out it’s really hard to make billions of dollars without exploiting people along the way. NCAA athletics are a multibillion dollar industry. Coaches are making millions. Athletic directors are making millions. Athletic departments are employed far more people than they were 20,30,40 etc years ago. Players do get access to quality development, facilities and various other services. But everybody else involved in athletics also gets those sorts of things as well as a paycheck.
College athletics might have to change. Maybe in the future, it doesn’t exist in a form anything close to resembling what we’ve grown up with. And that will be ok. Just because I am entertained by something doesn’t mean its ok for players to get denied something that could markedly improve their lives for reasons that aren’t even close to being reasonable. If the industry falls apart, it’ll be because it wasn’t a viable industry to begin with.
And he’d be in an even better position to having a good career with a few thousand more dollars in his pocket from taking advantage of his short time as a public figure.
You don’t think being able to move to any city of your choosing, ability to pay for additional certifications or trainings, start up money for a business etc etc has an effect on maximizing your professional career?
Either way, Spike should have been able to make money off himself in college if someone was willing to pay him. Whether it is $1 or $10,000 - it doesn’t matter.
Their best opportunities to make money as basketball players. Not in general forever.
Look at Muhammad-Ali Abdur-Rahkman. He played 100+ games for Michigan. Battled his ass off, never missed games. Michigan made millions off of his ability as a basketball player. Injures himself right after the season.
You are telling me that his likeness didn’t have more value in college than any other point?
Thought it was pretty obvious we were talking about the context of basketball. Some players are going to be able to profit off basketball more in college than they will outside it.
The issue is that he literally was not allowed to make money. No one was going to pay Spike Albrecht to go to Michigan, so he didn’t miss out there. But he wasn’t allowed to do ads on social media, sell autographs/shoes, make a public appearance, etc.
Again, with football, I get the argument. They can’t go pro for three years, and the risk of a career ending injury is very real.
Basketball? Let’s take the case of Zion Williamson. He went to Duke, where he was a national sensation for six months before turning pro. He played for a coach who is probably considered the best coach in college history. I’m sure he was a celebrity on his own campus, got treated like a king by everyone. That’s exploitation? Come on. Not to mention it’s the NBA, not the NCAA, who is forcing him to do something else for a year before playing pro basketball.
You know why the NCAA is so successful? Because it has a ton of FANS. And fans exist because their teams have a chance to win. In NCAA basketball, we’ve seen schools like Butler, Wisconsin, Virginia, Gonzaga, VCU, Texas Tech, and others make incredible runs in the tourney.
It’s going to detract from the product significantly if the same 4-5 teams make the Final Four every year because they literally hold a monopoly on the best players. And yes, it’s already trending that way, in large part because Mark Emmert is a complete buffoon who seems incapable of enforcing the rules.
No one has to play college basketball. Everyone knows what they are signing up for. It used to be (and probably still is for 95% of the guys were are talking about) a huge honor to be good enough to receive a Division I scholarship. Now it’s somehow “exploitation” if you don’t get paid, no matter how good you are.
Again, I’d give them a nice stipend every semester so their basic needs are covered, and I’d have a profit sharing system for the major sports - take away revenue from the overbloated athletic departments and share it with the players at the end of the year. But I would not just open it up to a bidding war among alumni.
Your implicit laissez-faire attitude is well and good, but ignores the amateur context–among lots of other sports, in college community settings–that all of this has to be extricated from. No one’s denying that the players are indeed exploited (though the degree is worth carefully examining, since what they do receive is not chopped liver); I think we’re all long since there on the need for change. It’s the details that are the rub, pretty obviously. And the palliatives that are usually suggested invite lots of other huge unanswered questions.
That wouldn’t go away because players could make money off likeness. And “4-5 teams dominating” could still happen under your profit sharing idea, which is one I like btw. Duke is going to make a ton of money, so if all the players care about is money, then they would all go to Duke.
Thing is, they all go to Duke anyway. There’s 13 scholarships and we have a 6 round single elimination format. Just because of that there will never be 4 teams completely dominating like we have in CFB.
I can get behind monitoring Boosters paying the players directly. Make sure it’s above board, the player is contributing value to the booster’s business some way, and the payment is within reasonable and fair value for what would normally be paid.
If someone wants to buy them a beer, they shouldn’t have to say no.