F the NCAA

[CrimsonNBlue]

Of course, as Bilas always points out, the analogies are really difficult because the fact is that college sports pulls in billions (if not trillions over the course of time).

[CrimsonNBlue]

We all know which way the wind is blowing. It would behoove the NCAA to recognize it and use it to its advantage.

Between COVID and the evolution of student athlete "rights" (for lack of a better term), it is clear that for college basketball to be a good product it needs both the power of the school brands and the brand of the players.

[Cascadia]

While I certainly won't argue the sentiment behind the article my biggest pet peeve is that CBB and CFB players aren't getting paid. They are 100% getting paid compared to their non student athlete counter parts. They get a stipend. They get free meals. They get free apparel. They get to live in much nicer places. They get FREE tuition. There travel accommodations are nicer. In college towns they are looked at as stars which allows them free perks that can't be quantified. Hell, the network they could build with rich donors who could help them out later in life. You tell the college kid who is working two jobs just to afford rent and tuition that these guys aren't getting 'paid'. I really hope the whole athletic support staff at Wagnon are telling these kids to use EVERY resource that is given them because they are high profile to help set them up for success later in life.

Now if you are a Manziel, or Tebow, someone like that who is a once in a generation type athlete who completely transcends not only your team but the University you have my ears as to why you deserve to be compensated well beyond what you are receiving as a student athlete.

This is similar to my argument.

I'm not against student athletes getting paid.

However, if you do want to go the route of paying college athletes then you should take away the stipend, meals, apparel, tuition, tutoring, travel expenses, housing, etc. They can pay for that our of their own pocket like everyone else. We tell regular college students to get a job, athletes will now have a job and they can get the best deal for them.

At least with NIL, that would be akin to telling an academic scholar that receives room + board + grants for travel/competition, etc. that they aren't allowed to use their skills to get compensated in a job outside of the school. That is, of course, absurd and not the rule. That's a big problem with the NCAA's position, particularly with NIL, is that they say student athletes should be treated like all other students but then make rules which singles them out.

But the university is paying them, they are employees. My employer has rules on what I can and cannot do as well.

[ousdahl]

If a third party approached you and said we wanna pay you additional income to moonlight with us, would your employer let you?

[pdub]

I'm technically not allowed to freelance for other companies according to my contract.

[Cascadia]

If a third party approached you and said we wanna pay you additional income to moonlight with us, would your employer let you?

No

[CrimsonNBlue]

This is similar to my argument.

I'm not against student athletes getting paid.

However, if you do want to go the route of paying college athletes then you should take away the stipend, meals, apparel, tuition, tutoring, travel expenses, housing, etc. They can pay for that our of their own pocket like everyone else. We tell regular college students to get a job, athletes will now have a job and they can get the best deal for them.

At least with NIL, that would be akin to telling an academic scholar that receives room + board + grants for travel/competition, etc. that they aren't allowed to use their skills to get compensated in a job outside of the school. That is, of course, absurd and not the rule. That's a big problem with the NCAA's position, particularly with NIL, is that they say student athletes should be treated like all other students but then make rules which singles them out.

But the university is paying them, they are employees. My employer has rules on what I can and cannot do as well.

Not sure what you are trying to say. I'm talking about the current setup and how NIL would affect. It's also my understanding that the NCAA wants to fight tooth and nail on the "employee" designation.

[jfish26]

While I certainly won't argue the sentiment behind the article my biggest pet peeve is that CBB and CFB players aren't getting paid. They are 100% getting paid compared to their non student athlete counter parts. They get a stipend. They get free meals. They get free apparel. They get to live in much nicer places. They get FREE tuition. There travel accommodations are nicer. In college towns they are looked at as stars which allows them free perks that can't be quantified. Hell, the network they could build with rich donors who could help them out later in life. You tell the college kid who is working two jobs just to afford rent and tuition that these guys aren't getting 'paid'. I really hope the whole athletic support staff at Wagnon are telling these kids to use EVERY resource that is given them because they are high profile to help set them up for success later in life.

Now if you are a Manziel, or Tebow, someone like that who is a once in a generation type athlete who completely transcends not only your team but the University you have my ears as to why you deserve to be compensated well beyond what you are receiving as a student athlete.

This is similar to my argument.

I'm not against student athletes getting paid.

However, if you do want to go the route of paying college athletes then you should take away the stipend, meals, apparel, tuition, tutoring, travel expenses, housing, etc. They can pay for that our of their own pocket like everyone else. We tell regular college students to get a job, athletes will now have a job and they can get the best deal for them.

My real issue with this argument is the disingenuous nature of those who fully support compensating college athletes.

I get the sentiment, but I'm not sure it has to be so hard.

The schools can offer scholarships/room/board/perks, if they want. Or they don't have to! Or they can pick what, and how much! Who cares?

Let the athletes make money, if they want to/can. Or they don't have to! Or they can pick how, and how much! Who cares?

This is how it works for literally every other college student. No one is, like, getting shut out of the business school in August because they spent the summer getting wined and dined by an accounting firm. No one is getting shut out of the J school because they got $1,000 to write a freelance piece for ESPN.com. No one is getting shut out of the medical school because they made $3,000/day to moonlight in a rural hospital in Iowa.

It just. doesn't. matter.

[jfish26]

I'm technically not allowed to freelance for other companies according to my contract.

You're so close!

[CrimsonNBlue]

I'm technically not allowed to freelance for other companies according to my contract.

You're so close!

Right. If the NCAA wants to say "you're an employee now" and then say they're no longer offering tuition/board, etc., they've opened up for collective bargaining.

[jfish26]

If a third party approached you and said we wanna pay you additional income to moonlight with us, would your employer let you?

No

But that's the deal you made. It's not, presumably, something you were more or less forced into, with next to no bargaining power.

And, yes, no one is forcing kids to play college basketball over other options. I get it. But I am a college basketball fan. I want good players to want to play college basketball.

[jfish26]

I'm technically not allowed to freelance for other companies according to my contract.

You're so close!

Right. If the NCAA wants to say "you're an employee now" and then say they're no longer offering tuition/board, etc., they've opened up for collective bargaining.

And a million other things. Nope, the NCAA does not want the players to be employees.

The best way to avoid that would be to give them the freedoms of being independent contractors.

[PhDhawk]

If a third party approached you and said we wanna pay you additional income to moonlight with us, would your employer let you?

No

Same for me, same for my wife.

[Cascadia]

While I certainly won't argue the sentiment behind the article my biggest pet peeve is that CBB and CFB players aren't getting paid. They are 100% getting paid compared to their non student athlete counter parts. They get a stipend. They get free meals. They get free apparel. They get to live in much nicer places. They get FREE tuition. There travel accommodations are nicer. In college towns they are looked at as stars which allows them free perks that can't be quantified. Hell, the network they could build with rich donors who could help them out later in life. You tell the college kid who is working two jobs just to afford rent and tuition that these guys aren't getting 'paid'. I really hope the whole athletic support staff at Wagnon are telling these kids to use EVERY resource that is given them because they are high profile to help set them up for success later in life.

Now if you are a Manziel, or Tebow, someone like that who is a once in a generation type athlete who completely transcends not only your team but the University you have my ears as to why you deserve to be compensated well beyond what you are receiving as a student athlete.

This is similar to my argument.

I'm not against student athletes getting paid.

However, if you do want to go the route of paying college athletes then you should take away the stipend, meals, apparel, tuition, tutoring, travel expenses, housing, etc. They can pay for that our of their own pocket like everyone else. We tell regular college students to get a job, athletes will now have a job and they can get the best deal for them.

My real issue with this argument is the disingenuous nature of those who fully support compensating college athletes.

I get the sentiment, but I'm not sure it has to be so hard.

The schools can offer scholarships/room/board/perks, if they want. Or they don't have to! Or they can pick what, and how much! Who cares?

Let the athletes make money, if they want to/can. Or they don't have to! Or they can pick how, and how much! Who cares?

This is how it works for literally every other college student. No one is, like, getting shut out of the business school in August because they spent the summer getting wined and dined by an accounting firm. No one is getting shut out of the J school because they got $1,000 to write a freelance piece for ESPN.com. No one is getting shut out of the medical school because they made $3,000/day to moonlight in a rural hospital in Iowa.

It just. doesn't. matter.

The point is simple. They are getting paid. You just think they should get paid more.

So just argue that instead of the disingenuous argument you typically lead with.

And, again, I'm not against them getting paid more.

[Cascadia]

If a third party approached you and said we wanna pay you additional income to moonlight with us, would your employer let you?

No

But that's the deal you made. It's not, presumably, something you were more or less forced into, with next to no bargaining power.

And, yes, no one is forcing kids to play college basketball over other options. I get it. But I am a college basketball fan. I want good players to want to play college basketball.

Then STOP MAKING THIS STUPID FUCKING ARGUEMENT.

[jfish26]

This is similar to my argument.

I'm not against student athletes getting paid.

However, if you do want to go the route of paying college athletes then you should take away the stipend, meals, apparel, tuition, tutoring, travel expenses, housing, etc. They can pay for that our of their own pocket like everyone else. We tell regular college students to get a job, athletes will now have a job and they can get the best deal for them.

My real issue with this argument is the disingenuous nature of those who fully support compensating college athletes.

I get the sentiment, but I'm not sure it has to be so hard.

The schools can offer scholarships/room/board/perks, if they want. Or they don't have to! Or they can pick what, and how much! Who cares?

Let the athletes make money, if they want to/can. Or they don't have to! Or they can pick how, and how much! Who cares?

This is how it works for literally every other college student. No one is, like, getting shut out of the business school in August because they spent the summer getting wined and dined by an accounting firm. No one is getting shut out of the J school because they got $1,000 to write a freelance piece for ESPN.com. No one is getting shut out of the medical school because they made $3,000/day to moonlight in a rural hospital in Iowa.

It just. doesn't. matter.

The point is simple. They are getting paid. You just think they should get paid more.

So just argue that instead of the disingenuous argument you typically lead with.

And, again, I'm not against them getting paid more.

What's disingenuous?

These two things can be, and I believe are, true at the same time: (1) the current athlete compensation model is unethical and immoral, and (2) the current athlete compensation model is bad for college basketball (and, with it, KU basketball).

[Cascadia]

I get the sentiment, but I'm not sure it has to be so hard.

The schools can offer scholarships/room/board/perks, if they want. Or they don't have to! Or they can pick what, and how much! Who cares?

Let the athletes make money, if they want to/can. Or they don't have to! Or they can pick how, and how much! Who cares?

This is how it works for literally every other college student. No one is, like, getting shut out of the business school in August because they spent the summer getting wined and dined by an accounting firm. No one is getting shut out of the J school because they got $1,000 to write a freelance piece for ESPN.com. No one is getting shut out of the medical school because they made $3,000/day to moonlight in a rural hospital in Iowa.

It just. doesn't. matter.

The point is simple. They are getting paid. You just think they should get paid more.

So just argue that instead of the disingenuous argument you typically lead with.

And, again, I'm not against them getting paid more.

What's disingenuous?

These two things can be, and I believe are, true at the same time: (1) the current athlete compensation model is unethical and immoral, and (2) the current athlete compensation model is bad for college basketball (and, with it, KU basketball).

You rarely, if ever, concede that athletes are being paid. You almost always frame it as free, forced labor of poor black kids for the benefit of rich white people.

And, again, I'm fine with them being compensated more than they are now. But, generally speaking, the people who advocate for this the loudest almost always present a false narrative.

[ousdahl]

How many other “employees” in other industries are likely to be approached by some third party with a bag full of cash?

How many other “employees” in other industries are as likely to be young and potentially from a less-than-ideal financial situation growing up?

Is that really such an easy decision if, say, you know your mom was behind on rent?

[Cascadia]

No idea. I'd advise doing your own market research.

[jfish26]

The point is simple. They are getting paid. You just think they should get paid more.

So just argue that instead of the disingenuous argument you typically lead with.

And, again, I'm not against them getting paid more.

What's disingenuous?

These two things can be, and I believe are, true at the same time: (1) the current athlete compensation model is unethical and immoral, and (2) the current athlete compensation model is bad for college basketball (and, with it, KU basketball).

You rarely, if ever, concede that athletes are being paid. You almost always frame it as free, forced labor of poor black kids for the benefit of rich white people.

And, again, I'm fine with them being compensated more than they are now. But, generally speaking, the people who advocate for this the loudest almost always present a false narrative.

I think I've been pretty consistent in acknowledging that that they are compensated, and that what they get has value.

What is self-evident from the existence of a black market is that what they get is clearly not representative of their true value.

I've also been consistent in my view that the reasons they can't access something closer to that true value are pretty evil, at bottom, and bad for the long-term health of the sport to boot.