If allowed, Tua would make a lot of money legitimately. He wouldn’t need handouts from boosters. That would be a poor use of their resources as opposed to simply funneling it to recruits. It would also get a lot less notice than Tua doing promotions and actually getting his image out there.
What makes you think a huge selling point to recruits wouldn’t be, “I made this much money last year. You can’t make this much anywhere else.” It would flow from everywhere.
Because I think actually giving the money to the recruits is a MUCH bigger selling point. Like a thousand times bigger.
They’re not mutually exclusive concepts. Kinda like how Cam Newton’s dad got a ton of money for his son to attend Auburn, and current Alabama players have quite an interesting car collection.
1 Like
We are already living in a time where schools are using a fabricated cost of living calculation to offer recruits a slightly bigger stipend than they would get at other schools. This factor is being manipulated to give schools a competitive advantage during recruiting. Here’s James Franklin pretending that his school isn’t doing exactly what he’s complaining about:
“There’s going to be much more awareness of it and people are going to be using it,” Franklin said. “The (schools) that are above other (schools) in terms of the amount of aid they’re going to be able to give, they’re going to be throwing that number around. For anybody to think this won’t be a factor in the process next year is being really naïve.”
“This is part of the equation we have to deal with now, and there are going to be some kids choosing a school based on money rather than that’s where they want to go; there’s no doubt,” Franklin said.
“I’m happy for the student-athletes, but there is concern when it goes completely away from the model that we’re all used to that we’re all able to offer the same thing. Now there’s another factor and whenever anything is new like this, you never really completely understand the unforeseen consequences.”
This article is 4 years old. I don’t think I’ve ever heard a recruit say they chose a school because of the stipend. Now admittedly a player wouldn’t admit that if they did, but I’ve never even heard an insider mention that.
And where does it talk about any of it being fabricated? COL adjustments can be easily found, and the schools have to do it as part of Federal rules. All they do is make it so everyone gets a roughly equal amount based on location. Which is why a recruit shouldn’t care about the stipend, because they’re all getting roughly the same amount.
Love to see a guy making $4.3 million a year from college football bemoan the size of stipend some kids may get.
Totally rational and fair allocation of resources
3 Likes
It comes down to this idea that kids making more money or kids getting X, Y and Z is for some reason wrong. That they should just play their part in a billion dollar industry (based on their ability) and be happy with what they get. The NCAA has made people think that a bigger stipend is bad or a football player getting a free car lease is bad. But why? Just because NCAA rules say it shouldn’t be OK?
3 Likes
Right - you can see the effect the propaganda machine has on people when they refer to compensating players as “dropping them a bag” and stuff. It’s income! We all get paid for our labor!
(Well not them)
Sounds like it’s time to drop the word corruption from the thread title. To be fair, we’ve all been discussion two types of reimbursement: that for college players actually playing and that for high school (or younger) players committing. I’m fine with paying college players a greater stipend but find it difficult to keep the open paying of college players for playing from the payment of younger players for committing.
1 Like
Yeah yesterday I opened this thread with 160 unread messages and got excited because I thought some major news must have broken about a big time program getting sanctioned. We can dream.
8 Likes
It’s one thing to advocate for changing the rules. To some extent, I agree with those notions. But I don’t have any problem with anyone condemning cheating. When everyone signs up to follow a certain set of rules, and some people depart from that to their own advantage, they rightly out to be called out. I mean, I think I pay too much in taxes - is it OK if I cheat the IRS and understate my income?
4 Likes
I don’t think it’s propaganda to call what happens corruption. It’s a corrupt system. It’s also an unjust one for not allowing players to profit off their likeness or otherwise gain a reasonable share in the wealth they create, but those are two different things. Players shouldn’t have to be secretive and coaches shouldn’t have to conspire. Rather than just call that system OK and drop the label, better to call it what it is, end it, and find a better one.
1 Like
Yeah, I feel like the discussion we were having was more about what is a realistic solution to the issue. No one is saying that cheating is right or whatnot. Just that the right solution would actually be to create a process where players are fairly compensated.
It’s that “fairly” word that we’re going to have a problem with.
Personally, I’m a little tired of the debate. I just hate that Michigan can’t recruit a bunch of players who would probably otherwise be interested because we believe in adhering to rules that are not consistently enforced. If liberalizing the rules about compensation means the end of that, let’s do it.
2 Likes
One concern which hasn’t been discussed here–is it the players themselves being compensated, or is it others who using them as chattels (just as it is suggested that colleges are doing) and selling them to the highest bidder for the seller’s own financial gain. One of my close friends is a retired 40+ year DI coach (Power 5 and mid-major, head coach and assistant), and his informed estimate is that about 1/2 or so of the top 100 have substantial extra benefits (not talking a free t-shirt or even a pair of shoes) attached to their recruitments, but that in the vast majority of these cases, the benefits (all or virtually all) do not go to the players themselves; instead they go to parents, relatives, “handlers,” AAU coaches, guardians, high school coaches, those with influence, etc. College basketball players have a special talent, and make money for their schools and coaches and the system itself, and thus they deserve to have “a reasonable share in the wealth they create.” Those who are using them for their own benefit (pimps in another context) do not, in my strong opinion, have a right to the aforesaid reasonable share.
I don’t know what system works best. I tend to think it is a system which allows players at the college level to directly receive payment for use of their likenesses (because at least that way, the money goes to the players), while prohibiting inducements in recruiting, especially if they flow to anyone other than the players, but I’m open to discussion. That said though, this is not a simple topic or solution. It is one though which has to be discussed and right now, so that the hunt for a better system takes into account all of the issues which will inevitably arise.
3 Likes
Yeah, this is another big reason that allowing players to profit off of their likeness in a legal and organized way makes the most sense. It actually benefits the people that it should.
No one (as far as I know) is arguing that the current system works. Or that the fact that people like Christian Dawkins are so involved in brokering deals between parents, AAU coaches and anyone else.
The point is that everything that is happening now is a function of the NCAA rules that prevent players from profiting off of their likeness (or being compensated in any way).
2 Likes
Well said LAW…JB was one or two recruits from a true Hoop Blue Blood status. IMO the system prevented the success because he wouldn’t cross over that line!
To me, it’s the broadcasters that need to fork over more money to the players. At the very least, the time a player has to set aside to film their graphic spots (where they stand in front of a green screen and dribble a basketball) should be compensated just as if they were SAG actors. They are enhancing the quality of the broadcast without getting paid for that contribution.