Kansas Crimson

ousdahl wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 2:20 pm I have.

I can’t believe Puffy Woods sank that putt.

But how would you suggest the NCAA support the schools?

And how would that be more feasible that simply N-I-L?

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 8:47 am That happens a lot with KU players.

And, it will happen more elsewhere once nil passes.

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 6:08 pm Sounds like the UNC fake class scheme..."we gave the deals to regular citizens too."

This should be cause for celebration. A set of tyrannical rules is getting loosened. People the market deems valuable will be allowed to make money they should have been allowed to make long ago. That’s fantastic. Previously unreasonable people have decided to use common sense and take a giant step toward the right thing. This is all quite wonderful.

But this is the NCAA, and nothing involving the NCAA can ever be that easy.

[...]

[It’s] so difficult to praise these folks even when they make a positive change. They always make it seem as if they’re doing everyone a massive favor when they get forced to do something they should have been doing all along.

To make matters worse, they missed the easiest layup they’ll ever get. The way they plan to structure the rules would not allow for a resumption of the EA Sports “NCAA Football” video game. They would not allow players to be shown in their uniforms or anything bearing school marks. And because the schools are scared of the players operating as a bargaining unit, the current plan for the rules wouldn’t allow for group licensing. That’s how EA Sports gets to use NFL players in Madden games. The company negotiates a blanket price with the NFL Players Association. EA Sports probably could make individual deals with every player on the two-deep of an FBS team — most would happily sign for a free copy of the game — but the restriction on showing the player in uniform would make any attempt at a game a non-starter.

If school and NCAA officials are smart, they’ll figure out a way to license the game by the time they finalize the rules early next year. There is a healthy segment of the college football-loving population that doesn’t care a bit about athletes’ rights but cares deeply about getting an NCAA Football game for the first time since 2014.

The people in charge would have to figure out a way to get around the no-players-in-uniform rule, but they could just make an exception. It’s not as if ideological consistency ever mattered to them before.

[...]

There’s always an asterisk with these guys. They want the playing field to be level, they say. So they will continue to go through the motions of protecting a notion of parity that has been hilariously refuted by every college football season that has ever been played.

Boosters, it turns out, will be able to pay athletes for endorsements. But they can’t pay so that player signs with Big State over Tech U. And not just because that player is a standout at football or basketball. No. Those would be the basest of inducements, and those still will be punishable by the vacation of wins or whatever toothless punishments the NCAA has in its arsenal down the road. The payments must be for some other reason.

[...]

The schools have tired of getting sued over these issues, but their leaders don’t seem to realize that the only way to slow the lawsuits is to quit with the half-measures and dive headlong into the pool they think they’re only dipping their toes into now. Instead of arguing about the rules for the next seven months, the schools should just accept that there should be relatively few rules. Let people pay athletes for whatever reasons they want to pay them, and the athletes and antitrust attorneys will find far fewer reasons to file lawsuits.

The most important sentence anyone uttered Wednesday was this one by Ohio State’s Smith: “There is no cap.”

In other words, an athlete can earn as much money as possible within the parameters provided by the NCAA. What Smith and the rest of the officials who made that announcement probably know — but can’t say for various reasons — is that those parameters will prove impossible to enforce and will ultimately be abandoned.

Then there really will be no cap.

And it won’t matter that the schools and the NCAA had to be dragged there kicking and screaming. They’re going to get there.

Which is a sentence I never imagined typing.

College sports are no longer the quaint land of varsity letter jackets, and kids just happy to play for Old State U. They are billion-dollar businesses making everyone rich save the athletes who do the work and provide the product. Arcane NCAA rules simply don’t fit in a world where teenagers can become social media influencers with their phone’s camera function, but Zion Williamson couldn’t get paid for his own autograph. Kudos to the NCAA for capitulating.

But the NCAA also was never going to go from 0 to 100. It would cede as little of its power as possible. Its banner headline from Wednesday — Board of Governors moves toward allowing student-athlete compensation for endorsements and promotions — was at best premature. In response to specific questions during a conference call with the media, Emmert repeatedly said the details had to be worked out. “The council was adamant that guardrails were in place before anything moves forward,’’ he said. It’s the details, though, that matter most because when they are buffered by the guardrails on the NCAA’s Autobahn to change, the guardrails will protect the NCAA. They won’t protect athletes. They’ll box them in.

[...]

Once those kinks are ironed out and turned into legislation, remember Newton’s law: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Or in this case, for every rule there will be a penalty. This is a system ripe for both the age-old art form of exposing loopholes, which means it will be rife with NCAA infractions. And who will be punished when the loopholes are exposed or the rules are broken? The athletes.

Consider: This year the NCAA deemed Penny Hardaway a booster, and dinged star freshman James Wiseman 12 games because Hardaway helped pay for Wiseman’s family to relocate, well before Hardaway became the coach at Memphis and the school was recruiting Wiseman. So if the owner of Bob’s Barbecue in College Town USA donated money in order to secure the rights to a box in the football stadium or a suite in the basketball arena, and has the star running back down to do a little BBQ promo for a small chunk of change, is that a violation?

And what of fair-market value? Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith, who co-chaired the NIL working group, offered a scenario: “If I do a deal with Panera Bread and I do two likes (on social media) and they pay me $50,000, I’m not sure that’s in the realm I’m talking about.’’ Yet Vox reported influencers with 1 million followers can make more than $100,000 and up to $250,000 per post. Tua Tagovailoa has 333,000 Twitter followers and 695,000 on Instagram. Is $50,000 so outlandish?

Adidas reps just went to jail for their involvement in steering recruits to campus. So what if now Adidas, which pays $160 million to Louisville, wants to use the Cardinals’ new hot-shot freshman to endorse some generic gear and dreams up this brilliant plan conveniently after the player starts classes? The working group addressed the concern in its report — whether certain categories of third-party businesses (e.g., athletics shoe and apparel companies) should be precluded from, or have limited participation in, the newly permitted activities, due to their history of encouraging or facilitating recruiting and other rules infractions — but offered no answers.

[...]

“The difficulty of it doesn’t mean we can’t try,” Ackerman said. She’s right, except the NCAA has to do better than just try. Between now and January, as it works out the details, it has to get this right. Athletes have fought hard for the right to the very things the rest of us take for granted, the ability to profit off our names and images, as well as our talents and skills.

If there need to be guardrails, fine. Just for once, NCAA, don’t protect yourselves. Protect your athletes.

pdub wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 5:55 am “Boosters, it turns out, will be able to pay athletes for endorsements. But they can’t pay so that player signs with Big State over Tech U.”

Well duh.
Do people want this?

pdub wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 8:27 am There are things that are subjective in life that some people agree with and others don't. There are rules in place - and rules are broken - but just because they are being broken doesn't mean that, if you agree with the rules, you just should give up on them.

If the rules are abandoned, just like if there was a law that changed and affected something else I enjoyed or my livelihood, i'd be bummed and try to separate myself from the situation.

The speed limit on my street is 25. It doesn't need to be 25, to me it's more a 35 mph street, it's open enough and not congested. I go over the speed limit on the street. Some people go way over the speed limit. I wouldn't want them to just say, well, fuck it, people are going over the speed limit, let's make this road 80 mph. If I got caught going 33 and was pulled over, i'd accept the ticket/fine, and maybe think about going 25 from then forward.

pdub wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 8:44 am I'm fine with NCAA enforcements if they were all laid out/organized and it didn't matter what program you were, you got the same punishment for that particular infraction.

The issue is the NCAA, if they want to maintain amateurism, need to figure out how to keep a stable business while also putting their 'money where their mouth' is -- and find the trouble spots and separate them from college basketball even if it means making less profit.

pdub wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 8:57 am “Boosters, it turns out, will be able to pay athletes for endorsements. But they can’t pay so that player signs with Big State over Tech U.”

Well duh.
Do people want this?

That's not going 33. That's just saying fuck it, lets go 80.

pdub wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 9:31 am I don't think the NCAA is good at what they do.
I agree with the base of what they argue.
They are shitty at implementing what they argue.