Kansas Crimson

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 1:52 pm

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 1:46 pm NIL helps the non-revenue athletes, too. There are many female student athletes that should be able to profit off of their large social media following (even though that can be icky, they should still be able to get compensated for it).

My concern isn't students making other sources of income. (Particularly in ways unrelated to their sport, I think the Greg Anthony type of examples make the NCAA look extremely dumb). I have a problem with the notion that it shouldn't or can't be restricted. I think, at the very least, that the universities should not be involved in setting up deals for players...and they will immediately.

I've said it before, but I think all you have to do is restrict endorsement deals to Sophomores and above and you avoid most of the problems that would come with using it as a recruiting tool, but no one seemed to agree with me.

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 1:53 pm

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 1:48 pm

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 1:47 pm Also, the backup left fielder is certainly not getting a full ride.

They are at my school. Backup soccer players where getting full scholarships. Track athletes get full scholarships regardless of how well they do in events with tens of spectators watching.

Definitely not the norm if true and could be a football thing.

Makes me angry to think the wealthy schools are even more stingy with scholarships than the smaller schools. They'll cite Title IX, but that's horseshit.

pdub wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 6:09 pm Henry Ts logo on the back of Jalen Wilson's jersey.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 1:58 pm And the sophomore and up endorsement idea is interesting.

It kinda makes me think it would still invite the under the table benefits for recruits and freshmen tho, but it’s at least a step in the right direction

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:02 pm I always start from a position of rules-restricting-players-is-bad and you better show me a good reason to put this rule in place.

Excluding freshmen from something a sophomore-senior can do because we don't trust coaches and schools to not be shady assholes in recruiting doesn't do it for me.

Make it about the student-athletes, right NCAA?

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:00 pm

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 1:53 pm

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 1:48 pm
They are at my school. Backup soccer players where getting full scholarships. Track athletes get full scholarships regardless of how well they do in events with tens of spectators watching.

Definitely not the norm if true and could be a football thing.

Makes me angry to think the wealthy schools are even more stingy with scholarships than the smaller schools. They'll cite Title IX, but that's horseshit.

It will get worse if colleges can start paying players salaries directly.

bye bye college baseball
hockey's gonna really struggle as a club sport
bye bye track
bye bye women's sports outside of basketball at 10 schools and volleyball at 5.

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 1:48 pm

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 1:47 pm Also, the backup left fielder is certainly not getting a full ride.

They are at my school. Backup soccer players where getting full scholarships. Track athletes get full scholarships regardless of how well they do in events with tens of spectators watching.

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:04 pm

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:02 pm I always start from a position of rules-restricting-players-is-bad and you better show me a good reason to put this rule in place.

Excluding freshmen from something a sophomore-senior can do because we don't trust coaches and schools to not be shady assholes in recruiting doesn't do it for me.

Make it about the student-athletes, right NCAA?

Time has a big impact on ethics.

Making someone wait for something is very different than denying it outright.

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 1:57 pm

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 1:52 pm

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 1:46 pm NIL helps the non-revenue athletes, too. There are many female student athletes that should be able to profit off of their large social media following (even though that can be icky, they should still be able to get compensated for it).

My concern isn't students making other sources of income. (Particularly in ways unrelated to their sport, I think the Greg Anthony type of examples make the NCAA look extremely dumb). I have a problem with the notion that it shouldn't or can't be restricted. I think, at the very least, that the universities should not be involved in setting up deals for players...and they will immediately.

I've said it before, but I think all you have to do is restrict endorsement deals to Sophomores and above and you avoid most of the problems that would come with using it as a recruiting tool, but no one seemed to agree with me.

Kind of where I was going earlier with the incremental steps. NIL is the place to start be arguments against are really very lacking. I definitely agree that direct compensation from the schools is extremely tricky in practice.

pdub wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 1:56 pm If you did something like that, upperclassmen could make x amount a year from endorsements, with major consequences if it was connected to the athletic department, that would be more reasonable.

i.e. one and dones who have no interest in school can look elsewhere because college athletics isn't where they should be.

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:06 pm

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:04 pm

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:02 pm I always start from a position of rules-restricting-players-is-bad and you better show me a good reason to put this rule in place.

Excluding freshmen from something a sophomore-senior can do because we don't trust coaches and schools to not be shady assholes in recruiting doesn't do it for me.

Make it about the student-athletes, right NCAA?

Time has a big impact on ethics.

Making someone wait for something is very different than denying it outright.

Depends on context, "justice delayed is justice denied." Less serious here, obviously, than in a criminal justice or civil rights context, but same line of logic would follow.

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:11 pm

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:06 pm

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:04 pm

Time has a big impact on ethics.

Making someone wait for something is very different than denying it outright.

Depends on context, "justice delayed is justice denied." Less serious here, obviously, than in a criminal justice or civil rights context, but same line of logic would follow.

In this case we're talking about deferring income for 9 months.

That's not even a thing. That kind of stuff happens all the time.

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:11 pm

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:06 pm

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:04 pm

Time has a big impact on ethics.

Making someone wait for something is very different than denying it outright.

Depends on context, "justice delayed is justice denied." Less serious here, obviously, than in a criminal justice or civil rights context, but same line of logic would follow.

In this case we're talking about deferring income for 9 months.

That's not even a thing. That kind of stuff happens all the time.

NDballer13 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:05 pm

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 1:48 pm

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 1:47 pm Also, the backup left fielder is certainly not getting a full ride.

They are at my school. Backup soccer players where getting full scholarships. Track athletes get full scholarships regardless of how well they do in events with tens of spectators watching.

School I went to gave out very few, some sports none, full rides for athletic scholarships. IIRC football could give out 10 while men's and women's basketball could each give 2. You had players getting 30% scholarships still being prohibited by NCAA rules from having summer jobs.

NDballer13 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:17 pm

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:11 pm

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:06 pm

Depends on context, "justice delayed is justice denied." Less serious here, obviously, than in a criminal justice or civil rights context, but same line of logic would follow.

In this case we're talking about deferring income for 9 months.

That's not even a thing. That kind of stuff happens all the time.

Do they get to collect 9 months of earning at the end? Or is it a 9 month wait until they can even start earning?

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:14 pm

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:11 pm

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:06 pm

Depends on context, "justice delayed is justice denied." Less serious here, obviously, than in a criminal justice or civil rights context, but same line of logic would follow.

In this case we're talking about deferring income for 9 months.

That's not even a thing. That kind of stuff happens all the time.

Does it include backpay?

Again, I think you are well intentioned, I just see that it only negatively affects the freshmen, and I'm not in favor of that considering they're committing no wrongs outside of just being freshmen.


Perhaps maybe the tampering and hush-hush of money exchange that exists now would be more regulated if it is brought up from under the table.

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:17 pm

NDballer13 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:05 pm

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 1:48 pm
They are at my school. Backup soccer players where getting full scholarships. Track athletes get full scholarships regardless of how well they do in events with tens of spectators watching.

School I went to gave out very few, some sports none, full rides for athletic scholarships. IIRC football could give out 10 while men's and women's basketball could each give 2. You had players getting 30% scholarships still being prohibited by NCAA rules from having summer jobs.

I'm not defending the NCAA. My point is that we're grossly undervaluing the worth of a scholarship. The % of student athletes getting them isn't what's relevant. What is relevant is that, compared to taking out student loans and paying off school with interest, a full ride is probably worth about a half million bucks over 4-5 years.