F the NCAA

[TDub]

From my perspective, it's a "how" question. I personally don't feel that direct compensation (KU pays David McCormack) is necessary or even desirable. I do feel that KU needs to get the hell out of the way of him making money however he'd like, which - yes - likely means taking vastly less money from adidas etc.

Yes. But my point is, i think the sticking point is a multi faceted offshoot of this

1. Players ARE compensated, significantly, compared to standard students.

2. Even if KU doesnt directly pay them, but "boosters" can pay them significant sums for insignificant work/appearances/autographs then that completely changes the landscape of college sports.

3. Minor league sports suck.

On #1 - and it's crazy to me that we're still arguing about this - no one is saying that the players are not compensated now. But, it's stupid (and, frankly, un-American) for anything except the market to determine what is "full" and "fair". And the present "compensation" will be (is) factored in.

As for #2 and #3 - tough shit. This is an adapt or die thing.

1. So pay the players, take away scholarships and room and board, training and strength coaches. Practices only,make them pay their way on the rest. Is that a net gain for 95% of athletes?

2. Easy to say tough shit. But it has more impact than that statement allows.

[jfish26]

They arent minor league for that sport. They arent farm systems for a higher level national league

"Giggle."

- second- and third-tier European leagues.

[Deleted User 863]

I'd be fine with players earning over a certain amount with the NIL change being required to pay their way (tuition, living, etc).

The change to NIL isn't going to impact 99% of college athletes.

[jfish26]

Yes. But my point is, i think the sticking point is a multi faceted offshoot of this

1. Players ARE compensated, significantly, compared to standard students.

2. Even if KU doesnt directly pay them, but "boosters" can pay them significant sums for insignificant work/appearances/autographs then that completely changes the landscape of college sports.

3. Minor league sports suck.

On #1 - and it's crazy to me that we're still arguing about this - no one is saying that the players are not compensated now. But, it's stupid (and, frankly, un-American) for anything except the market to determine what is "full" and "fair". And the present "compensation" will be (is) factored in.

As for #2 and #3 - tough shit. This is an adapt or die thing.

1. So pay the players, take away scholarships and room and board, training and strength coaches. Practices only,make them pay their way on the rest. Is that a net gain for 95% of athletes?

2. Easy to say tough shit. But it has more impact than that statement allows.

#1 - why the need for the tortured hypothetical? I can tell you this - if you take away the part of the compensation that schools do provide, college basketball will absolutely cease to exist as anything better than NAIA-level ball (and all that goes with that).

[TDub]

They arent minor league for that sport. They arent farm systems for a higher level national league

"Giggle."

- second- and third-tier European leagues.

Obviously I was referring to in the United States.

[CrimsonNBlue]

I'd be fine with players earning over a certain amount with the NIL change being required to pay their way (tuition, living, etc).

The change to NIL isn't going to impact 99% of college athletes.

It's quite a bit less than 99%. In fact it will impact 100% of all college athletes depending on how we define impact. It affects all of them and they can immediately change some of their behaviors.

I also don't understand the whole tying the scholarship to new NIL rights. Giving NIL rights isn't taking away from the schools. That should be any student's right to begin with, and it has been unless you were an athlete!

[jfish26]

Yes. But my point is, i think the sticking point is a multi faceted offshoot of this

1. Players ARE compensated, significantly, compared to standard students.

2. Even if KU doesnt directly pay them, but "boosters" can pay them significant sums for insignificant work/appearances/autographs then that completely changes the landscape of college sports.

3. Minor league sports suck.

On #1 - and it's crazy to me that we're still arguing about this - no one is saying that the players are not compensated now. But, it's stupid (and, frankly, un-American) for anything except the market to determine what is "full" and "fair". And the present "compensation" will be (is) factored in.

As for #2 and #3 - tough shit. This is an adapt or die thing.

1. So pay the players, take away scholarships and room and board, training and strength coaches. Practices only,make them pay their way on the rest. Is that a net gain for 95% of athletes?

2. Easy to say tough shit. But it has more impact than that statement allows.

#2 - I don't at all deny that this is going to be nothing less than a seismic shift. What I'm interested in - what I've always and consistently been interested in - is (1) how does college basketball survive and remain at least as relevant as it is, and (2) how does KU stay at least 90%* as awesome as it is?

I personally don't feel there's a path to solving those that does not involve the players getting, in the aggregate, full compensation.

* I'm prepared to accept that Bill's run over the last 20 years was a high-water mark.

[jfish26]

I'd be fine with players earning over a certain amount with the NIL change being required to pay their way (tuition, living, etc).

The change to NIL isn't going to impact 99% of college athletes.

It's quite a bit less than 99%. In fact it will impact 100% of all college athletes depending on how we define impact. It affects all of them and they can immediately change some of their behaviors.

I also don't understand the whole tying the scholarship to new NIL rights. Giving NIL rights isn't taking away from the schools. That should be any student's right to begin with, and it has been unless you were an athlete!

Because there's this innate, illogical, pro-management streak in sports fandom.

[jfish26]

They arent minor league for that sport. They arent farm systems for a higher level national league

"Giggle."

- second- and third-tier European leagues.

Obviously I was referring to in the United States.

Not sure what difference it makes. The really kick-ass players leave MLS, by design. Same thing.

[CrimsonNBlue]

I'd be fine with players earning over a certain amount with the NIL change being required to pay their way (tuition, living, etc).

The change to NIL isn't going to impact 99% of college athletes.

It's quite a bit less than 99%. In fact it will impact 100% of all college athletes depending on how we define impact. It affects all of them and they can immediately change some of their behaviors.

I also don't understand the whole tying the scholarship to new NIL rights. Giving NIL rights isn't taking away from the schools. That should be any student's right to begin with, and it has been unless you were an athlete!

Because there's this innate, illogical, pro-management streak in sports fandom.

It's truly bizarre to see so many hate billionaires except the ones that own sports enterprises.

[Deleted User 863]

I'd be fine with players earning over a certain amount with the NIL change being required to pay their way (tuition, living, etc).

The change to NIL isn't going to impact 99% of college athletes.

It's quite a bit less than 99%. In fact it will impact 100% of all college athletes depending on how we define impact. It affects all of them and they can immediately change some of their behaviors.

I also don't understand the whole tying the scholarship to new NIL rights. Giving NIL rights isn't taking away from the schools. That should be any student's right to begin with, and it has been unless you were an athlete!

I agree NIL doesn't take anything away from the schools. I was offering a compromise.

And my 99% number was more or less trying to say that the vast majority of athletes won't make significant money off NIL changes.

[CrimsonNBlue]

I'd be fine with players earning over a certain amount with the NIL change being required to pay their way (tuition, living, etc).

The change to NIL isn't going to impact 99% of college athletes.

It's quite a bit less than 99%. In fact it will impact 100% of all college athletes depending on how we define impact. It affects all of them and they can immediately change some of their behaviors.

I also don't understand the whole tying the scholarship to new NIL rights. Giving NIL rights isn't taking away from the schools. That should be any student's right to begin with, and it has been unless you were an athlete!

I agree NIL doesn't take anything away from the schools. I was offering a compromise.

And my 99% number was more or less trying to say that the vast majority of athletes won't make significant money off NIL changes.

OK, but there just doesn't need to be nor should there be a compromise. Why would there be a compromise if the schools aren't giving anything up?

Significant money, most probably won't, but right now they aren't allowed to make even a penny, which is wrong. There will be thousands that will make money off of things like instagram ads or even an appeareance or autograph--need to think beyond the shoe company endorsements and beyond the revenue sports. Women's gymnastics is the most watched sport at the Summer Olympics and looking at the US team, many will be in college this fall and should be able to capitalize on that.

[Deleted User 863]

It's quite a bit less than 99%. In fact it will impact 100% of all college athletes depending on how we define impact. It affects all of them and they can immediately change some of their behaviors.

I also don't understand the whole tying the scholarship to new NIL rights. Giving NIL rights isn't taking away from the schools. That should be any student's right to begin with, and it has been unless you were an athlete!

I agree NIL doesn't take anything away from the schools. I was offering a compromise.

And my 99% number was more or less trying to say that the vast majority of athletes won't make significant money off NIL changes.

OK, but there just doesn't need to be nor should there be a compromise. Why would there be a compromise if the schools aren't giving anything up?

Significant money, most probably won't, but right now they aren't allowed to make even a penny, which is wrong. There will be thousands that will make money off of things like instagram ads or even an appeareance or autograph--need to think beyond the shoe company endorsements and beyond the revenue sports. Women's gymnastics is the most watched sport at the Summer Olympics and looking at the US team, many will be in college this fall and should be able to capitalize on that.

Hey, i am with you. I think we feel similar on this subject.

My hypothetical compromise was just for the sake of hypothetical discussion with TDub. More of a "hey, what if they did this, would that make you feel better?".

[CrimsonNBlue]

I agree NIL doesn't take anything away from the schools. I was offering a compromise.

And my 99% number was more or less trying to say that the vast majority of athletes won't make significant money off NIL changes.

OK, but there just doesn't need to be nor should there be a compromise. Why would there be a compromise if the schools aren't giving anything up?

Significant money, most probably won't, but right now they aren't allowed to make even a penny, which is wrong. There will be thousands that will make money off of things like instagram ads or even an appeareance or autograph--need to think beyond the shoe company endorsements and beyond the revenue sports. Women's gymnastics is the most watched sport at the Summer Olympics and looking at the US team, many will be in college this fall and should be able to capitalize on that.

Hey, i am with you. I think we feel similar on this subject.

My hypothetical compromise was just for the sake of hypothetical discussion with TDub. More of a "hey, what if they did this, would that make you feel better?".

It makes more sense if the schools were paying the student athletes directly from revenue they receive from sports. And hell, most big schools like KU run the money through an entity not tied with the school, anyway (for-profit), but that's a technical point. Then you would have a better argument about overhead, etc.

But this is NIL, which is quite different. It's pretty bullshit that KU has been selling player autographs for this long and pocketing the money when the signatures belong to the players and they have no say in how that is accomplished.

[jfish26]

OK, but there just doesn't need to be nor should there be a compromise. Why would there be a compromise if the schools aren't giving anything up?

Significant money, most probably won't, but right now they aren't allowed to make even a penny, which is wrong. There will be thousands that will make money off of things like instagram ads or even an appeareance or autograph--need to think beyond the shoe company endorsements and beyond the revenue sports. Women's gymnastics is the most watched sport at the Summer Olympics and looking at the US team, many will be in college this fall and should be able to capitalize on that.

Hey, i am with you. I think we feel similar on this subject.

My hypothetical compromise was just for the sake of hypothetical discussion with TDub. More of a "hey, what if they did this, would that make you feel better?".

It makes more sense if the schools were paying the student athletes directly from revenue they receive from sports. And hell, most big schools like KU run the money through an entity not tied with the school, anyway (for-profit), but that's a technical point. Then you would have a better argument about overhead, etc.

But this is NIL, which is quite different. It's pretty bullshit that KU has been selling player autographs for this long and pocketing the money when the signatures belong to the players and they have no say in how that is accomplished.

Now here's something I haven't thought about.

Will colleges be allowed to pay players for NIL, without running afoul of Title IX? I mean, if you're putting kids on ads for tickets, etc., it stands to reason that you should be allowed to pay them.

[CrimsonNBlue]

Hey, i am with you. I think we feel similar on this subject.

My hypothetical compromise was just for the sake of hypothetical discussion with TDub. More of a "hey, what if they did this, would that make you feel better?".

It makes more sense if the schools were paying the student athletes directly from revenue they receive from sports. And hell, most big schools like KU run the money through an entity not tied with the school, anyway (for-profit), but that's a technical point. Then you would have a better argument about overhead, etc.

But this is NIL, which is quite different. It's pretty bullshit that KU has been selling player autographs for this long and pocketing the money when the signatures belong to the players and they have no say in how that is accomplished.

Now here's something I haven't thought about.

Will colleges be allowed to pay players for NIL, without running afoul of Title IX? I mean, if you're putting kids on ads for tickets, etc., it stands to reason that you should be allowed to pay them.

I think Title IX would say you have to distribute that equally. Just thinking out loud, maybe that is easiest by using it to fund some kind of student-athlete services fund--mental health, legal, marketing, etc. Of course, now we get into the issue of unions and bargaining.

[Deleted User 89]

or university bookstores for adverts

[jfish26]

It makes more sense if the schools were paying the student athletes directly from revenue they receive from sports. And hell, most big schools like KU run the money through an entity not tied with the school, anyway (for-profit), but that's a technical point. Then you would have a better argument about overhead, etc.

But this is NIL, which is quite different. It's pretty bullshit that KU has been selling player autographs for this long and pocketing the money when the signatures belong to the players and they have no say in how that is accomplished.

Now here's something I haven't thought about.

Will colleges be allowed to pay players for NIL, without running afoul of Title IX? I mean, if you're putting kids on ads for tickets, etc., it stands to reason that you should be allowed to pay them.

I think Title IX would say you have to distribute that equally. Just thinking out loud, maybe that is easiest by using it to fund some kind of student-athlete services fund--mental health, legal, marketing, etc. Of course, now we get into the issue of unions and bargaining.

But you're not paying for play. You're paying for NIL. Which is allowed, or about to be.

[pdub]

I'm already starting to be over it with CnB and Fish starting to try and figure out player unions and ad distribution dollars.

Either this place will be coated in ads bc if you cant beat em, join em, or will be kusportsd.

[CrimsonNBlue]

Now here's something I haven't thought about.

Will colleges be allowed to pay players for NIL, without running afoul of Title IX? I mean, if you're putting kids on ads for tickets, etc., it stands to reason that you should be allowed to pay them.

I think Title IX would say you have to distribute that equally. Just thinking out loud, maybe that is easiest by using it to fund some kind of student-athlete services fund--mental health, legal, marketing, etc. Of course, now we get into the issue of unions and bargaining.

But you're not paying for play. You're paying for NIL. Which is allowed, or about to be.

I'm no expert on Title IX, but I think you run into potential equal access problems providing any kind of benefit/compensation.