College basketball corruption charges

You keep harping on this point but it isn’t a balanced playing field right now and there’s still incredible parity and uncertainty in college basketball. That is because it is a 68-team single elimination tournament to decide the champion. That’s why you can’t just judge teams by their NCAA tourney success (but that’s neither here nor there).

The idea that the NCAA Tournament would be ruined because kids aren’t exploited is just silly season.

If you are that worried about boosters, how about there’s some sort of system that sponsorships need to be approved through. Nike wants to sponsor Zion, they can agree to a deal. The Wichita Kia dealership wants to do a local ad with Fred Van Vleet, they file the same paper work. Zion wants to sell sponsored Instagram posts for his 4 million followers, he can file a deal sheet.

3 Likes

Just because we don’t have the details worked out doesn’t mean we shouldn’t move forward. People get paid to figure these sort of logistics out. The NCAA has god knows how many employees - I think they can figure out a way for players to be able to make money they’re entitled to.

I don’t really give a crap about faux amateurism. Coaches don’t make millions of dollars in an amateur setting.

2 Likes

Clemson and Bama have made it to four straight college football playoffs and faced off in the championship game three times out of those four. NCAA football is still making money. NBA still made money when the Bulls won six titles in the 90s and when Golden State was dominating. UCLA won something like 11 titles in 15 years in NCAAB and the sport ended up fine.

I think you also need to look up the definition of exploitation. It is literally just about others profiting off someone or something else unfairly. Coaches, athletic directors etc etc make millions of dollars (while also receiving the benefits of facility upgrades, technology etc etc as those things make their jobs much easier) and the players are PREVENTED from making money off of their own talent. Yes, they get access to alot of things. Cool. That’s still not money in their pocket. If my boss told me that they now considered access to a computer, the internet, software etc etc as part of my compensation and would now pay me a few thousand less every year, I’d be pissed and rightfully so.

1 Like

No, I meant profit sharing on an equal basis - you take half the NCAA profits (not each school’s) and divide that up among all the players for every school (and maybe a small bonus for making the S16, E8, FF, etc).

Who is going to “monitor” the boosters? The schools? Zero incentive, just like now. The NCAA does not have the staff.

The other thing that I’d add is that I don’t really think one-and-done has much to do with the discussion. Obviously 1AD is a bad rule that should be eliminated and kids should have a choice but the exploitation taking place isn’t really going to change.

It isn’t like the TV contracts behind the NCAA Tournament are going to shift because kids go straight to the NBA.

3 Likes

What difference does filing paperwork make?

You’re missing my entire point.

Sports make money because people watch them. Pro leagues create an intricate set of rules (and immunize those rules from antitrust laws through collective bargaining agreements) to make their leagues as competitive as possible.

If you want to compensate college players, then let’s do it like they do it in the pros. The top recruits don’t get to pick where they go to school. Instead, Rutgers gets the #1 draft pick, followed by Washington State, Vanderbilt, etc. The players sign 3-4 year deals, and they’ll get a signing bonus which will be prorated, so if they leave early, they have to pay some of it back.

We’ll have revenue sharing among all teams, and a salary cap, with real monitoring and consequences for violations (see the 1994 49ers).

That’s how pro leagues actually work.

To me, “silly season” is claiming these guys are akin to slaves, and that to remedy the problem, we should just open up the floodgates to paying players without giving strong consideration to making sure the product is just as strong.

Tell me how my plan - a generous stipend every semester (in addition to the free education the players receive), and profit sharing per sport, is exploitation?

It’s no more exploitation than tech company engineers who, in exchange for a $200,000 annual salary, assign to their company the rights to every patent they obtain, some of which are commercially worth billions. Or a law firm paying an associate $200,000 a year and making $800,000 from that person’s work.

If we said every college had to take its profits and invest them in facilities, and academic scholarships, instead of paying athletic department employees, would that make people feel better?

Thats how pro leagues work in the USA. Look at top flight soccer in Europe (where leagues have to compete against each other) and the structure is completely different

1 Like

I don’t have any knowledge of how pro soccer works in other countries. What are the differences? I feel like some of those leagues have teams that regularly fold due to financial problems. Is that inaccurate?

If you want to put rules around it, filing paperwork makes it traceable. So you want no boosters to be involved in paying players. An entity that pays players would have to be traced, legal, approved, whatever.

It is just crazy to me that we are at a point where we somehow think a kid getting paid for an autograph is wrong just because the NCAA says that it is.

How are you determining “a generous stipend”? The bottom line is that people want to say what is enough compensation or that a free education is enough. Well maybe it is, but if you are worried about more money flowing into the hands of kids then maybe it isn’t really fair.

I just don’t think anything about college sports is fair in the sense that you think of American pro sports league. That’s also why Michigan alumni probably enjoy college sports a lot more than Northwestern alumni. They spend significantly more money on it, have more boosters, etc. College athletic departments operate at very different scales. That’s never changing.

I love college basketball as much as just about anyone. Who knows what changing the parameters might do to the game, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is pretty obviously the right thing to do.

It is especially hard to think anything different when you see the inner-workings of the NCAA Tournament or Final Four. Very illuminating as far as what a big business this really is.

4 Likes

The conversation got narrowed to paying players, but the subject of the thread–battling corruption–is what I was alluding to. Again “not giving a crap” about amateurism doesn’t magically remove the many, many very real implications of (potentially) retaining such status in most sports, or a legacy of a century and a half of same. Saying "that’s what the experts are for. . . " that’s just bailing when the going gets a little tougher. Agree that it’s too big a topic to cover well here–such message-board conversations often yield more heat than light.

I think a fundamental disconnect here is that some (LAWolverine being the loudest) place their experience as a fan over the fairness extended to the athletes (if this is a misrepresentation, correct me, but I think you explicitly said so). Some don’t. I think where you fall on that is going to guide your opinion on the matter.

1 Like

I don’t see it as a problem, assuming they had the ability to go pro outta high school

The schools all have compliance officers that check these things once they’re on campus. Players may get paid underhanded, but the schools do their best to make sure it doesn’t come back around to them. The NCAA has tons of employees. Making rules about how business can be done with athletes is not crazy, and can definitely be implemented. Schools undergo audits every year, so they are used to having to keep paper trails around. Companies ar used to singing contracts, sending invoices, etc. Just make it have to operate like a normal legal business that it is

Well, let’s put it this way - particularly when it comes to college basketball (since the kids can go pro after one year, and soon it will be straight to the pros), I don’t see it being particularly unfair.

I’m more receptive when it comes to college football.

I’m not saying I don’t favor some reforms. I do. I just think the reforms need to be sensible, and aimed at keeping the level of competition the same or improving it. I don’t want college football or basketball to devolve (even more) into what SEC or ACC fanbase is willing to pay the most on behalf of their teams. (Keep in mind, in many of these states - Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Kentucky, South Carolina, college football or basketball IS their version of pro sports).

1 Like

I think you’re naive in assuming that every school treats compliance in the same way. You think Alabama and Clemson are vigilant about policing their football teams when it comes to drug testing? Heck, we’ve heard former Baylor players say people in the AD coached them on how to avoid positive tests.

1 Like

That’s coaches going around compliance. I assume the compliance at Clemson and Alabama test as often as required, yes, because you can’t really get away with not drug testing. Also, I don’t really think it’s that relevant to what I am talking about. Once you start talking about getting around business requirements, the SEC/IRS and the like start getting involved which schools and individuals don’t want to mess with.

Again, your main point seems to entirely be around parity. You haven’t addressed how CFB/CBB are already not a level playing field, and how letting kids make money off their likeness will make that worse. In fact, I think it can be argued it would help parity in some ways.

Think about the 4th best recruit in a class at UK. He’s below at least 3 other guys in marketbility. But maybe that guy will now say, be the best recruit at Purdue or something. Now he has potentially more earning potential and more incentive to go to a lesser school.

1 Like

There is no draft players are brought up through the academy system. players are rarely if ever traded (called a swap) but a “transfer fee” is agreed between clubs ie team A pays team B to release player A from his contract (this all has to be agreed to with the player as well). A player then will usually get a new contract with their new club. There is no salary cap, though there are some systems that make sure the teams stay financially sound. The closest system to the USA sports is baseball, but with a lot more player freedom

1 Like

Sure, it’s not a level playing field, but again at least we see plenty of “lesser” teams who make deep March Madness runs. And we generally see lots of fans in both sports showing up and watching their teams.

Letting players profit from their likeness, to me, is a runaway train for abuse. It will just encourage bidding wars among the most well-heeled and motivated boosters. You’ll see Tua “signing autographs” for $5,000 a pop at an Alabama booster event. No thanks.

I think there are ways to compensate players reasonably without ruining the sport.

One of the things that makes the NFL great is that Roger Goodell does not cater to the wealthiest and most powerful owners. He handed down suspensions to Tom Brady and Ezekiel Elliott, which drew the ire of Robert Kraft and Jerry Jones. The NCAA is just the opposite - their treatment of the UNC situation was a joke.

1 Like

NFL fans are crazy, but no NFL fans are paying any of them 5000 a pop for autographs. Nike isnt funneling guys to different NFL teams, etc. I think your fear is overblown.

$5,000 is nothing. Who cares? That’s exactly the type of money they should be getting. Just because Tua is getting some appearance fees doesn’t mean every player will go to Alabama now. 1. scholarship limits 2. If you’re a backup QB you aren’t gonna be getting those appearance fees, so it will behoove you to go somewhere you can start and will be appreciated. 3. Football is such a bad example cause there is absolutely no parity in it now. Clemson, Alabama, UGA, and OSU pretty much have a monopoly on 5*.

There will be cinderella runs in basketball so long as there is a 68 team single elimination tournament and 13 player scholarship limits.

Also, I don’t really see Goodell as a positive example of anything. The Brady suspension was dumb, among other dubious decisions

3 Likes