F the NCAA

[DrPepper]

I think I have an idea for a side gig.
(gets out sewing machine)

[Sparko]

I think I have an idea for a side gig.
(gets out sewing machine)

That's the most millennial thing Doug Gottlieb and I have ever heard . . .

[jfish26]

Candid Coaches: Would you support an Olympic-style model for student-athletes?

https://www.cbssports.com/college-baske ... -athletes/

[A]n intense debate has emerged in college athletics -- one centered on whether student-athletes should get more or just be appreciative of what they already get. So, with this in mind, we decided to ask more than 100 college coaches the following question:

Would you support an Olympic-style model that allows student-athletes to profit off of their name, image and likeness?

Yes: 77 percent
No: 23 percent

Quotes that stood out

[...]"I'm for it because it's the right thing to do. And I think we'll get some version of it relatively soon."

"Why would we restrict someone from making money off of their likeness? If there is a market to make some extra money, student-athletes should be allowed to do it. For some, it could mean staying in school longer and completing their education. That's consistent with the NCAA's mission."

[...]

"It would be nuts for me to be making the money I make and then turn around and tell you I don't think the players deserve more. And the Olympic model is the obvious way to do it. It's not perfect. It'll create some issues. But it would do more good than bad. It would make our sport better. So I'd vote for it."

The takeaway

I was pleasantly surprised to see the coaches vote so overwhelmingly, and enthusiastically, in favor of college athletics adopting an Olympic-style model because, if you read or listen to me at all, you know I've been banging the drum on this issue for years. Still, I didn't expect more than three-fourths of coaches polled to agree with me. I would've predicted something closer to a 50-50 split.

So this is progress, I think.

As I've explained many times -- including in this column from February 2018 -- the most sensible approach to making college athletics more fair for student-athletes, and to eliminating recruiting scandals from college sports, is for the NCAA to adopt an Olympic-style model that allows student-athletes to profit from their name, image and likeness. And I don't mean just football and basketball players. I mean, all student-athletes -- yes, the football and basketball players, but also the volleyball players, soccer players, golfers and anybody else. If an internationally known shoe company, some local car dealership, or anything in between, believes your endorsement is worth something, you should be allowed to accept whatever it is they're offering.

"But where does it stop?" asked one coach who voted "no" because of the advantages it would create for the biggest schools with the biggest boosters and corporate backing. "How much is FedEx paying James Wiseman for a billboard then? How much is a car dealership in Auburn paying Danjel Purifoy then? I think kids deserve it. But there needs to be a cap to keep the playing field somewhat even."

Among the "no" responses, this was a common theme. Coaches believe incorporating an Olympic-style model would "legalize cheating" and create advantages for certain schools. And, long as we're being honest, I can admit they're 100 percent correct. It definitely would. Nike would offer endorsement deals in exchange for elite prospects enrolling, or staying, at Kentucky or Duke, Adidas would offer endorsement deals in exchange for elite prospects enrolling, or staying, at Kansas. And, yes, FedEx would put James Wiseman on a billboard quicker than FedEx can deliver a package from Memphis to Melbourne. So Kentucky, Duke, Kansas, Memphis and schools like them would absolutely have incredible recruiting advantages over schools unlike them.

But guess what? They already do!

So if your argument against an Olympic-style model is that the schools that care the most about a certain sport, and commit the most resources to a certain sport, would bring in the best prospects annually, my question is this: Have you seen the recruiting rankings lately?

That's already how most, if not all, college sports work.

And it's why I've long believed the NCAA adopting an Olympic-style model wouldn't change the order of things much at all. The same schools that get the best recruits now would likely get the best recruits then. The same schools that win the championships now would likely win the championships then. And, in the process, every student-athlete in every sport would get whatever it is somebody thinks they're worth -- whether it's a lot, a little or nothing more than what they already get. And the best part is that it would also effectively eliminate cheating from recruiting because, follow me here, if it's legal for student-athletes to accept whatever somebody deems they're worth, there is no table for which deals to be done under. Everything could happen above board and in the light. So we'd never again have to wonder why a prospect signed with School A instead of School B; we'd know exactly why because it would be documented. And it should be noted that an Olympic-style model might actually give smaller schools a better chance than they currently have at enrolling elite student-athletes because, with an Olympic-style model, if a smaller school had a booster willing to throw real money around, the deal a borderline top-100 prospect could get from that school might be better than the deal the borderline top-100 prospect could get from a traditional power. So, perhaps, he or she might just accept the best deal available regardless or tradition or league affiliation.

Bottom line, this needs to happen.

The biggest thing working against it is that the money companies and boosters are now donating to universities would, in some cases, instead go directly to student-athletes -- which means universities would lose control of some revenue, and God knows they hate the idea of that. But the NCAA adopting an Olympic-style model is undeniably popular with most fans and has been for years. And the results of this poll suggest college basketball coaches are, on the whole, in favor of it too. So now it's just a matter of convincing the power-brokers to also get on board. It won't be easy, obviously. But, hopefully, it's not impossible.

Underlining is mine. This neatly captures the state of things, as I see it.

[pdub]

I mean, duh:

"How much is FedEx paying James Wiseman for a billboard then? How much is a car dealership in Auburn paying Danjel Purifoy then?"

Dumb.
But free market!!!
Go phogushers!!!

[jfish26]

I mean, duh:

"How much is FedEx paying James Wiseman for a billboard then? How much is a car dealership in Auburn paying Danjel Purifoy then?"

Dumb.
But free market!!!
Go phogushers!!!

Because that's so much purer than the same money being laundered through middlemen or hangers-on (all with their hand out), or by way of tearing out the locker rooms every third offseason.

Come on. The money's already in the system. What's dumb is to keep pretending it's not.

[Deleted User 89]

so, where is the line drawn?

and, if there is a line to be drawn, what’s to keep the unscrupulous from going beyond the line of permissible?

[jfish26]

so, where is the line drawn?

and, if there is a line to be drawn, what’s to keep the unscrupulous from going beyond the line of permissible?

I'm not sure why there needs to be rules at all, other than disclosure I guess.

But it's certainly true that whatever rules are eventually overlaid the N/I/L issue will be tested, and skirted, and broken. It is pretty basic economics/psychology, though, that the closer the new rules get to a free market, the less incentive there will be for the players to cheat the rules to try to get more money. Of course, this being the NCAA, the chances of the new rules being sensible, restrained and unambiguous are zero.

[pdub]

"It is pretty basic economics/psychology, though, that the closer the new rules get to a free market.."

The further it gets away from college athletics.

[jfish26]

"It is pretty basic economics/psychology, though, that the closer the new rules get to a free market.."

The further it gets away from college athletics.

Ok. Well, you need to get over it, or plan for a life after "college athletics" as you perceive it to exist. If the coaches - who, mind you, have perhaps benefited the most from the cartel - are in favor of this at a 3/1 clip and rising, then this is just going to happen.

[twocoach]

"It is pretty basic economics/psychology, though, that the closer the new rules get to a free market.."

The further it gets away from college athletics.

College athletics hasn't been what I think you're stating it is for decades.

[jfish26]

I must admit that I would enjoy (as appears might be the case) if the FBI's enforcement of the rules (with the NCAA's encouragement or at least non-opposition) is ultimately what brings the rules down.

[pdub]

I don't need to get over anything.
Either they push a certain way ( i.e. enforcement ), which they seem to be trying to do but I don't really have that much faith in the NCAA, and the G League/other pro leagues become/s more lucrative, or they open it up and I stop caring nearly as much.

[jfish26]

I don't need to get over anything.
Either they push a certain way ( i.e. enforcement ), which they seem to be trying to do but I don't really have that much faith in the NCAA, and the G League/other pro leagues become/s more lucrative, or they open it up and I stop caring nearly as much.

That's...getting over it, right?

[pdub]

I figured you meant just get over it and keep my fandom at it's current level.
Then yes, that would be getting over it.

[ousdahl]

So if all the dark money in college hoops got brought out into the light, you would be less of a fan?

[CrimsonNBlue]

Uppity youths.

When I was their age, we played pure basketball!

[pdub]

Dunno how many times we want to do this dance but in a sense, yes.

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.

[jfish26]

Dunno how many times we want to do this dance but in a sense, yes.

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.

To stay with the metaphor, though...if they made the speed limit 35, which (I'll take your word for it) there's no good reason not to (perhaps besides Old Mrs. Brown's feelings that cars were better when they could only go 25)...there would be fewer people speeding on that road.

Or, to stay with the metaphor further: if Old Mrs. Brown moved away from the street because of those feelings, you (as someone who thinks the speed limit should be 35) would think, "what a weird thing to move away over."

[pdub]

And i'd be OK with the speed limit at 30 or 35 i.e. scholarships granted for four years, more money applied to the facilities where all the athletes in the future will play, stipends to where the athletes don't have to worry about anything while they are playing.

I don't want the speed limit to be 50. Or 80. I can go on the highway for that.
And if it was 80, I don't think it'd be a weird thing to move away over.

[jfish26]

And i'd be OK with the speed limit at 30 or 35 i.e. scholarships granted for four years, more money applied to the facilities where all the athletes in the future will play, stipends to where the athletes don't have to worry about anything while they are playing.

I don't want the speed limit to be 50. Or 80. I can go on the highway for that.
And if it was 80, I don't think it'd be a weird thing to move away over.

Ok. But what we're talking about here (whether you want to believe it or not) is that we're already on the autobahn. Going from 25 to 35 isn't going to keep people from going 140.