NCAA Scholarships

Calvin · Apr 17, 2017

There's always a fight to keep costs down, and since it's a long off-season, thought there might be others besides me that would find this interesting....

Article was a front page link on USA Today for an anti-trust lawsuit to challenge what players can receive in men's football, basketball, and women's basketball.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...e-athletes-pay-purdue-big-ten-ncaa/100553590/

It's my opinion that the NCAA will continue to struggle with the model they have because at the high end of the spectrum, the market price of the the best athletes is significantly higher than what the schools are allowed to offer. For 95% of athletes, choice of a scholarship offer is going to be a reasonable exchange of their work and talent. At the elite level, though, the model breaks down.

I find it ironic that the article claims that donors think athletes get too many benefits. Who do they think is funding all that money that gets thrown at collegiate sports?

Second and Chalmers · Apr 17, 2017

Calvin said:
I find it ironic that the article claims that donors think athletes get too many benefits. Who do they think is funding all that money that gets thrown at collegiate sports?

I think the point is that the enormous amount of money in college sports is significantly fueled by the checkbooks of exactly the traditionalist old fogeys that have the most retrograde thinking about player compensation in college sports.

Just assuming they would be willing to bankroll a transition to a more professionalized model is probably a faulty assumption.

That's the trick of it. College sports are minor league sports. But for whatever reason major conference NCAA football and men's basketball have a certain pixie dust to them that makes them a big time commercial property in a way no other minor league is on earth.

I think it's fair to say that there is risk in the push for professionalization of college sports that you essentially homogenize the product with the vastly superior pro game, lose that pixie dust, and essentially kill the golden goose.

You have to achieve a balance that is both legally and morally justifiable while also being recognizably college sports as we know it and love it.

Thor015 · Apr 17, 2017

Second and Chalmers said:
. But for whatever reason major conference NCAA football and men's basketball have a certain pixie dust to them that makes them a big time commercial property in a way no other minor league is on earth.

I believe pixie dust is the pride peoplenhave for going to a university and watching sports of "their" school. Or growing up and being encouraged to root for a particular team.

That's the magic

illiniknight · Apr 17, 2017

Thor015 said:
I believe pixie dust is the pride peoplenhave for going to a university and watching sports of "their" school. Or growing up and being encouraged to root for a particular team.

That's the magic

Not all that much different then rooting for a pro team because they happen to play in your city or you were encouraged to root for them growing up. Sports in general is do to a fan feeling a sort of attachment to a particular team regardless of the reason. The long traditions of college football and basketball have led to that attachment for many people. As long as they continue to feel that way it will be big business.

Thor015 · Apr 17, 2017

illiniknight said:
Not all that much different then rooting for a pro team because they happen to play in your city or you were encouraged to root for them growing up.

Difference:

Discussing college being a minor league system. Not pro teams vs college.

As Chicago Cubs fan I'm not as passionate about their minor league teams as I am about my college (Illinois) teams.

Pixie dust is made

JudsonFTS · Apr 18, 2017

Second and Chalmers said:
I think the point is that the enormous amount of money in college sports is significantly fueled by the checkbooks of exactly the traditionalist old fogeys that have the most retrograde thinking about player compensation in college sports.

Just assuming they would be willing to bankroll a transition to a more professionalized model is probably a faulty assumption.

That's the trick of it. College sports are minor league sports. But for whatever reason major conference NCAA football and men's basketball have a certain pixie dust to them that makes them a big time commercial property in a way no other minor league is on earth.

I think it's fair to say that there is risk in the push for professionalization of college sports that you essentially homogenize the product with the vastly superior pro game, lose that pixie dust, and essentially kill the golden goose.

You have to achieve a balance that is both legally and morally justifiable while also being recognizably college sports as we know it and love it.

I think the only fair and equitable solution is one alumni fan bases would not like. Essentially you have to privatize the sports teams that can survive financially and make them no longer require students to play. But pay them fairly and if the young person is so inclined then they can take their pay from that private institution and pay for their education.

Effectively the Auburn Tigers Football team would belong to a private entity and not the University.

Second and Chalmers · Apr 18, 2017

JudsonFTS said:
I think the only fair and equitable solution is one alumni fan bases would not like.

That's sort of a catch 22 though, right? If the only way to save college sports is to make them unpopular with their own fans, then there is no way to save college sports. The cure is worse than the disease.

The truth is that the status quo is very, very effective for everyone who has the power to create change.

FiveStar · Apr 19, 2017

I think the answer here is less about what the university can do for athletes and more about letting them do more for themselves. Allow them to profit on their image and likeness. It takes some pressure off schools to provide extra benefits to every athlete, and allows those who have separated themselves as recognizable fan favorites to profit at a level that is probably more fair to them. Think about 2005 Dee. Everyone in college basketball knows who he is. He's on the cover of SI billed as the face of college basketball. You're telling me it would have been wrong to allow Dee to make a Gatorade, Nike, or even local car dealer commercial? I don't think so. The market speaks by grabbing who it wants as an endorser and players are provided an opportunity to be fairly compensated at their market value.

BMo79 · Apr 19, 2017

FiveStar said:
I think the answer here is less about what the university can do for athletes and more about letting them do more for themselves. Allow them to profit on their image and likeness. It takes some pressure off schools to provide extra benefits to every athlete, and allows those who have separated themselves as recognizable fan favorites to profit at a level that is probably more fair to them. Think about 2005 Dee. Everyone in college basketball knows who he is. He's on the cover of SI billed as the face of college basketball. You're telling me it would have been wrong to allow Dee to make a Gatorade, Nike, or even local car dealer commercial? I don't think so. The market speaks by grabbing who it wants as an endorser and players are provided an opportunity to be fairly compensated at their market value.

the answer would be to make farm teams for football and basketball. Kids have a choice in baseball to go pro or to go to collage for at least 3 years, do the same with other sports. Trouble is you aren't going to find enough people willing to start up those kind of teams.

WesterveltVictoryCigar · Apr 19, 2017

BMo79 said:
the answer would be to make farm teams for football and basketball. Kids have a choice in baseball to go pro or to go to collage for at least 3 years, do the same with other sports. Trouble is you aren't going to find enough people willing to start up those kind of teams.

They already exist for basketball.

Calvin · Apr 19, 2017

FiveStar said:
Allow them to profit on their image and likeness. It takes some pressure off schools to provide extra benefits

Great thought, and I think it would be fair for athletes to get that money, but I also think that's a huge can of worms. Hard to administrate, and doesn't really address the behind the scenes money that individual programs/boosters would use to attract candidates. And let's face it, the NCAA is fighting tooth and nail to keep every slice of the pie.

Second and Chalmers · Apr 19, 2017

Calvin said:
Great thought, and I think it would be fair for athletes to get that money, but I also think that's a huge can of worms. Hard to administrate, and doesn't really address the behind the scenes money that individual programs/boosters would use to attract candidates.

It doesn't so much not address it as completely legalize it.

You could just pay Anthony Davis a million dollars to appear in a local car commercial, and people absolutely would. You've given away the game at that point.

Plus, that would crowd out donations significantly. Who would donate to the I Fund if there were a Kickstarter campaign to "advertise" with Mark Smith?

JudsonFTS · Apr 19, 2017

Second and Chalmers said:
That's sort of a catch 22 though, right? If the only way to save college sports is to make them unpopular with their own fans, then there is no way to save college sports. The cure is worse than the disease.

The truth is that the status quo is very, very effective for everyone who has the power to create change.

To the contrary I am not trying to save college sports. I am privatizing them so in effect they are professional sports.

Ga65 · Apr 19, 2017

FiveStar said:
I think the answer here is less about what the university can do for athletes and more about letting them do more for themselves. Allow them to profit on their image and likeness. It takes some pressure off schools to provide extra benefits to every athlete, and allows those who have separated themselves as recognizable fan favorites to profit at a level that is probably more fair to them. Think about 2005 Dee. Everyone in college basketball knows who he is. He's on the cover of SI billed as the face of college basketball. You're telling me it would have been wrong to allow Dee to make a Gatorade, Nike, or even local car dealer commercial? I don't think so. The market speaks by grabbing who it wants as an endorser and players are provided an opportunity to be fairly compensated at their market value.

This has always seemed logical to me. The superstars would be making money without forcing athletes in all sports to be paid. Who gets the money now?? Is it the college or the NCAA?