I know many on this site are in favor of paying student athletes, I am one of the few opposed, while I do think that scholarship amounts should be raised to a level where a student athlete can live comfortably while in school. Here is my take on the situation: 1. If anyone should pay the athletes (and the schools) it should be the NFL as college football is effectively a farm system for the NFL - or let the NFL start their own farm system and athletes that want to be paid can go there instead of to college. 2. Paying athletes will create serious inequities in the system. The schools that spend the most will buy the best teams. Who sets a 'salary cap' for players and teams? What happens to programs that won't spend big bucks? They won't be competitive and will eventually die. What happens when a player decides to transfer from one school to another for a bigger paycheck? 3. How do you figure out how much to pay each player? Is there a formula? Is there a draft on signing day to allow the free market to dictate salaries? There should be a simple solution: the NCAA keeps the rules it has and the NFL should start a farm system for kids who want to get paid. Increase scholarship amounts so kids can rent a decent apartment, buy some jeans now and then and fly home for the holidays. Lastly, the NFL ought to donate an amount of at least 10% of the value all the draft contracts each year to the NCAA since without the NCAA they would not be in business. That's my take. I appreciate the virtue signaling but the results are like what just happened with MLB moving the All-Star game to a lilly white city in a state with voting laws more restrictive than Georgia. The MLB Commissioner really should resign from Augusta.
Every time I make a post about the NCAA, you make this point:
"Paying athletes will create serious inequities in the system. The schools that spend the most will buy the best teams."
So I'll go ahead and respond with the point I always make in response: The schools that spend the most ALREADY buy the best teams.
Less relevant to the discussion of the NCAA, but I really dislike the phrase 'virtue signaling,' because it implies that people don't actually believe what their actions say they believe. I actually believe that it's wrong that the NCAA makes billions off of the people who actually produce value. I'm not virtue signaling about it, I legitimately believe it. Maybe MLB actually believes that the Georgia voting law is immoral and bad for the country. Also, Colorado really, really does not have more restrictive voting laws than Georgia: https://www.ajc.com/politics/mlb-all-star-game-what-colorados-voters-have-that-georgias-dont/QNLANBDS5JHBLH76WWLOFWXJL4/
"I actually believe that it's wrong that the NCAA makes billions off of the people who actually produce value. I'm not virtue signaling about it, I legitimately believe it."
What does this have to do with football? The NCAA doesn't make billions, off of football at all. Next to nothing. This seems like an emotional belief yours rather than something backed up by actual facts. You want to hate a distant organization rather than Cal sports? It's all part of the same system, there's no distinction at all. If you hate the NCAA, you hate college sports (and I guess the illusion of amateurism) - period.
And while I could probably use more precise language, when I say NCAA in this context I guess I'm just generally referring to the system of amateurism, as the NCAA is the body that codifies and enforces that system.
You know, I just don't think you've thought this through at all, Nick. What we've seen with the nationalization of CF with the playoffs starting in 2014 has hurt the sport tremendously, and tarnished what made it so enjoyable in the first place. Chasing the almighty dollar was a mistake. Sure more money, but at what cost? And if what you want comes to pass, it will 100% destroy the sport and render it unrecognizable to what came before.
Maybe you have thought this out and are cool with that, but I'm not.
I'd draw a distinction between what I want (entertaining college football in which Cal might actually win a conference title) and what is the right thing to do. If there were some way to put the genie back in the bottle and not make money hand over fist, then great. But it's morally wrong for the players who ARE the product and take on all the risk to not share in those profits.
I'm not naive, I spend way more time than is healthy thinking about this stupid sport. The reason I'm still here writing about it is because I've found ways to keep enjoying Cal football even though I'm pretty sure that a rare 9-3 season is about the best we can reasonably hope for. But I'm not going to support a morally wrong system just on the off chance that it would be more entertaining to me as a fan.
Not true. There are limits the NCAA places on much of what sports teams can spend on. Some are outside those limits, such as coaches salaries. Right now teams can't buy players and they can't pay a player more than allowed under the scholarship formula. Are there inequities because of coaches salaries? Certainly, but those are far less than the problem that will need to be confronted to implement a player payment system. Just as an fyi, I have been told by a CAL alum 'who is in the know' that paying a coach a competitive salary at CAL is not a problem; the alums have the money to pay whatever is necessary to get or keep a great coach, they just aren't stupid about how they spend it. It turns out they were wise to hire Coach Wilcox and NOT hire the guy I wanted way back when who now coaches the baby bears down south. (Boy was I wrong on that call). As to the virtue signaling point is was not to offend, but more to show the foolishness that when you cross desire of a better outcome without a clear and well thought out plan, then the whole effort backfires. And with respect to the differences in voting laws between GA and CO, I'll agree to disagree with you. I think the major point of contention is GA is now requiring voter ID for mail in ballots. According to Rasmussen 75% of Americans support voter ID and I am one of them. In our age of modern technology and with all the money Congress is spending, we can get every legal voter an ID. https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/march_2021/75_support_voter_id_laws
"There are limits the NCAA places on much of what sports teams can spend on."
Limits that are flagrantly ignored and that the NCAA has proven powerless to enforce. The only spending limits in place, generally, are on direct benefits to athletes, so instead schools spend money on what they can - coaches, recruiting, and increasingly unnecessary facilities.
I mean, come on. Twenty out of twenty eight CFB playoff spots have been taken by just FOUR programs. You know what kind of schools currently count as CFB playoff underdogs? Absurdly rich schools like Georgia and Notre Dame. I don't understand how anybody can look at the current landscape of competitive balance in college football and think that any reform might make it meaningfully worse.
The bottom line is that IMO the current problem (billions made by players NOT going to players) is orders of magnitude worse than the problems that would be created by allowing players to be compensated in some fashion. One of those problems is a moral failing, the other problem might (MIGHT) make a hobby I have less entertaining.
I don't really want to make this about American election law since that's completely off topic, but that bill does way more than the single part you mentioned, and all to fix a nonexistent problem. Voter fraud is virtually nonexistent in this country.
"I don't understand how anybody can look at the current landscape of competitive balance in college football and think that any reform might make it meaningfully worse."
Again with the football - NCAA only really makes money off of March Madness - but I think you lack imagination, thinks can ALWAYS get worse.
When programs build winning teams kids want to play for winners so the best talent goes to those teams. And as those teams win and make more money they spend more on coaches and facilities. But its an equal playing field. Any school can choose to go that route. Before Saban came to Bama they had been in a downward spiral. The AD, Bill Battle, recognized the value of a brand because of the success of the Texas brand. He decided to do two things, trademark the Alabama brand, and pay for the best coaches to create a winning team. His success has been beyond anyones dreams. Dynasties rise and fall over time and college football is no different. Btw, none of these teams are cheating when it comes to rules about money. The NCAA does a very effective job at policing its programs. In any event, answer the questions I posed in my first posting because you haven't done that. You have made your same points that the kids are deserving. But tell me how we can do it successfully. Start by answering my questions and concerns and let's see if there is a way to do it successfully. One more thought, if you change the system and a bunch of programs disappear, you have effectively ended the chance for of any kids who would have played in those programs to ever experience college football, just so you could turn the college game into a pro game. We already have a professional league.
"Start by answering my questions and concerns and let's see if there is a way to do it successfully."
I doubt that I have arguments that you will find convincing. I think giving athletes NIL rights would be an easy and relatively painless step that would go a long way towards balancing who compensates from whom. Beyond that, I've already admitted that NCAA reform might cause changes that you think are bad, and I've told you I think that possibility is worth the risk.
Your last paragraph avoids the very heart of the issue. I will listen to any answers you provide. I would be open to any plan that can show me this idea would work without severely damaging college football as we know it, ending opportunities for thousands of kids who would like to play for no money so that a few can be paid. If you don't want to answer my questions then, please, at least put forth a plan that is sound.
And with all due respect Nick, if you can solve the problems that I articulated with a player payment system, then I would support it. But I do not think it can be done successfully and would end college football as we know it. It would shrink the number of programs the same way Title lX destroyed Division 2 football (Sonoma State, SF State, Hayward State, and many many more).
Maybe this change would shrink the number of programs. Who knows, the future is hard to predict. But I think Title IX is an accidentally good example, because I think the loss of lower level football programs in exchange for equal gender access to sport is a worthwhile exchange just like fairer revenue distribution is a worthwhile exchange, even knowing there might be some negative externalities.
Might be some negative externalities? Might? In your pursuit of some concept of fairness (paying college athletes for their "value") would annihilate college sports entirely. All the changes to the payoff system in CF have already made things much, much worse as you correctly point out, but now the answer is to pull the plug on the system? Sure, let's just do away with the whole thing, burn it all down, it's worthless. No would care anymore if what you really occurs.
Rather odd take for a sports blog, but this is Berkeley I guess.
I thought I had already posted this response but did not see it upon returning to the site. I believe Title lX was a good call. I was still disappointed however at all the programs that were wiped out as a result and what it meant to the thousands of kids that will not get to play college football as a result. One does not mutually exclude the other. I wish there was a better way to make it work. The thing about title lX though is its all about equal access to sports for women and has nothing to do with getting paid. Despite my sadness at losing Div 2 football, it was a worthy trade off. I don't see the same worthy trade off to pay student athletes, especially when the majority will make nothing and the very small minority will be paid handsomely. And there is something to be said about paying for the pride of your institution. Getting preferential admittance and a free education to a world class school is worth a lot. Our recruiters call it the 30 year program because when you look at the numbers of pro players and what they earn over a an average career, a successful CAL grad makes more over their 30 year career. I'll leave it there and suggest we just disagree, however, I would like to see you outline a plan of how you see it would work without major damage to the current college football structure.
There's all kinds of fuzzy accounting mixed in to how athletic departments keep their books, to say nothing of booster and bagman under-the-table spending that the NCAA has been completely incapable of curbing or punishing. But the easiest way to measure institutional commitment to winning games is coaching salaries.
I agree that the implementation is difficult. One of my concerns for awhile now has been the role of injuries in determining a student athlete's ability to get to the next level or decide to take his or her life in a different direction. There would need to be a system wide level of payouts to students across college sports that is equivalent, large schools (the sports powerhouses) would have to refrain from paying the athletes more than the poorer schools. The issue of transferring is a problem as is dealing with athletes on winning teams getting sponsorships and celebrity status while others toil in obscurity. The NFL starting a minor league not requiring a college degree would help, but there are still other issues that crop up.
The celebrity status is both the most problematic (as it obviously favors the bigger schools) but also the most likely to happen soon, as the extension of the brand (name, image, likeness) rights that will be given to the student-athletes. There will likely be some cap on just how much an amateur student-athlete can earn.
Since I was just at the NCAA women's gymnastics regional, which included UCLA who has had been infamous in the past few years to have a viral floor routine per year. While there have been some outlet that writes about how much the student-athlete would make if she gets a fraction of a cent on each view, I am pretty sure that the UCLA women's gymnastics program itself has not really monetized those videos, outside UCLA, in general, getting more fame for their athlete going on Ellen, etc.
I know many on this site are in favor of paying student athletes, I am one of the few opposed, while I do think that scholarship amounts should be raised to a level where a student athlete can live comfortably while in school. Here is my take on the situation: 1. If anyone should pay the athletes (and the schools) it should be the NFL as college football is effectively a farm system for the NFL - or let the NFL start their own farm system and athletes that want to be paid can go there instead of to college. 2. Paying athletes will create serious inequities in the system. The schools that spend the most will buy the best teams. Who sets a 'salary cap' for players and teams? What happens to programs that won't spend big bucks? They won't be competitive and will eventually die. What happens when a player decides to transfer from one school to another for a bigger paycheck? 3. How do you figure out how much to pay each player? Is there a formula? Is there a draft on signing day to allow the free market to dictate salaries? There should be a simple solution: the NCAA keeps the rules it has and the NFL should start a farm system for kids who want to get paid. Increase scholarship amounts so kids can rent a decent apartment, buy some jeans now and then and fly home for the holidays. Lastly, the NFL ought to donate an amount of at least 10% of the value all the draft contracts each year to the NCAA since without the NCAA they would not be in business. That's my take. I appreciate the virtue signaling but the results are like what just happened with MLB moving the All-Star game to a lilly white city in a state with voting laws more restrictive than Georgia. The MLB Commissioner really should resign from Augusta.
Every time I make a post about the NCAA, you make this point:
"Paying athletes will create serious inequities in the system. The schools that spend the most will buy the best teams."
So I'll go ahead and respond with the point I always make in response: The schools that spend the most ALREADY buy the best teams.
Less relevant to the discussion of the NCAA, but I really dislike the phrase 'virtue signaling,' because it implies that people don't actually believe what their actions say they believe. I actually believe that it's wrong that the NCAA makes billions off of the people who actually produce value. I'm not virtue signaling about it, I legitimately believe it. Maybe MLB actually believes that the Georgia voting law is immoral and bad for the country. Also, Colorado really, really does not have more restrictive voting laws than Georgia: https://www.ajc.com/politics/mlb-all-star-game-what-colorados-voters-have-that-georgias-dont/QNLANBDS5JHBLH76WWLOFWXJL4/
"I actually believe that it's wrong that the NCAA makes billions off of the people who actually produce value. I'm not virtue signaling about it, I legitimately believe it."
What does this have to do with football? The NCAA doesn't make billions, off of football at all. Next to nothing. This seems like an emotional belief yours rather than something backed up by actual facts. You want to hate a distant organization rather than Cal sports? It's all part of the same system, there's no distinction at all. If you hate the NCAA, you hate college sports (and I guess the illusion of amateurism) - period.
Thanks to the college football playoff, the NCAA distributed more than half a billion dollars to member institutions in 2018-19: https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2020/01/09/college-football-playoff-financial-success-expansion-future/2838495001/
And while I could probably use more precise language, when I say NCAA in this context I guess I'm just generally referring to the system of amateurism, as the NCAA is the body that codifies and enforces that system.
You know, I just don't think you've thought this through at all, Nick. What we've seen with the nationalization of CF with the playoffs starting in 2014 has hurt the sport tremendously, and tarnished what made it so enjoyable in the first place. Chasing the almighty dollar was a mistake. Sure more money, but at what cost? And if what you want comes to pass, it will 100% destroy the sport and render it unrecognizable to what came before.
Maybe you have thought this out and are cool with that, but I'm not.
I'd draw a distinction between what I want (entertaining college football in which Cal might actually win a conference title) and what is the right thing to do. If there were some way to put the genie back in the bottle and not make money hand over fist, then great. But it's morally wrong for the players who ARE the product and take on all the risk to not share in those profits.
I'm not naive, I spend way more time than is healthy thinking about this stupid sport. The reason I'm still here writing about it is because I've found ways to keep enjoying Cal football even though I'm pretty sure that a rare 9-3 season is about the best we can reasonably hope for. But I'm not going to support a morally wrong system just on the off chance that it would be more entertaining to me as a fan.
Not true. There are limits the NCAA places on much of what sports teams can spend on. Some are outside those limits, such as coaches salaries. Right now teams can't buy players and they can't pay a player more than allowed under the scholarship formula. Are there inequities because of coaches salaries? Certainly, but those are far less than the problem that will need to be confronted to implement a player payment system. Just as an fyi, I have been told by a CAL alum 'who is in the know' that paying a coach a competitive salary at CAL is not a problem; the alums have the money to pay whatever is necessary to get or keep a great coach, they just aren't stupid about how they spend it. It turns out they were wise to hire Coach Wilcox and NOT hire the guy I wanted way back when who now coaches the baby bears down south. (Boy was I wrong on that call). As to the virtue signaling point is was not to offend, but more to show the foolishness that when you cross desire of a better outcome without a clear and well thought out plan, then the whole effort backfires. And with respect to the differences in voting laws between GA and CO, I'll agree to disagree with you. I think the major point of contention is GA is now requiring voter ID for mail in ballots. According to Rasmussen 75% of Americans support voter ID and I am one of them. In our age of modern technology and with all the money Congress is spending, we can get every legal voter an ID. https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/march_2021/75_support_voter_id_laws
"There are limits the NCAA places on much of what sports teams can spend on."
Limits that are flagrantly ignored and that the NCAA has proven powerless to enforce. The only spending limits in place, generally, are on direct benefits to athletes, so instead schools spend money on what they can - coaches, recruiting, and increasingly unnecessary facilities.
I mean, come on. Twenty out of twenty eight CFB playoff spots have been taken by just FOUR programs. You know what kind of schools currently count as CFB playoff underdogs? Absurdly rich schools like Georgia and Notre Dame. I don't understand how anybody can look at the current landscape of competitive balance in college football and think that any reform might make it meaningfully worse.
The bottom line is that IMO the current problem (billions made by players NOT going to players) is orders of magnitude worse than the problems that would be created by allowing players to be compensated in some fashion. One of those problems is a moral failing, the other problem might (MIGHT) make a hobby I have less entertaining.
I don't really want to make this about American election law since that's completely off topic, but that bill does way more than the single part you mentioned, and all to fix a nonexistent problem. Voter fraud is virtually nonexistent in this country.
"I don't understand how anybody can look at the current landscape of competitive balance in college football and think that any reform might make it meaningfully worse."
Again with the football - NCAA only really makes money off of March Madness - but I think you lack imagination, thinks can ALWAYS get worse.
THINGS
When programs build winning teams kids want to play for winners so the best talent goes to those teams. And as those teams win and make more money they spend more on coaches and facilities. But its an equal playing field. Any school can choose to go that route. Before Saban came to Bama they had been in a downward spiral. The AD, Bill Battle, recognized the value of a brand because of the success of the Texas brand. He decided to do two things, trademark the Alabama brand, and pay for the best coaches to create a winning team. His success has been beyond anyones dreams. Dynasties rise and fall over time and college football is no different. Btw, none of these teams are cheating when it comes to rules about money. The NCAA does a very effective job at policing its programs. In any event, answer the questions I posed in my first posting because you haven't done that. You have made your same points that the kids are deserving. But tell me how we can do it successfully. Start by answering my questions and concerns and let's see if there is a way to do it successfully. One more thought, if you change the system and a bunch of programs disappear, you have effectively ended the chance for of any kids who would have played in those programs to ever experience college football, just so you could turn the college game into a pro game. We already have a professional league.
"Btw, none of these teams are cheating when it comes to rules about money. The NCAA does a very effective job at policing its programs."
They're cheating. The information is out there if you're willing to look for it. https://www.bannersociety.com/2014/4/10/20703758/bag-man-paying-college-football-players
"Start by answering my questions and concerns and let's see if there is a way to do it successfully."
I doubt that I have arguments that you will find convincing. I think giving athletes NIL rights would be an easy and relatively painless step that would go a long way towards balancing who compensates from whom. Beyond that, I've already admitted that NCAA reform might cause changes that you think are bad, and I've told you I think that possibility is worth the risk.
Your last paragraph avoids the very heart of the issue. I will listen to any answers you provide. I would be open to any plan that can show me this idea would work without severely damaging college football as we know it, ending opportunities for thousands of kids who would like to play for no money so that a few can be paid. If you don't want to answer my questions then, please, at least put forth a plan that is sound.
And with all due respect Nick, if you can solve the problems that I articulated with a player payment system, then I would support it. But I do not think it can be done successfully and would end college football as we know it. It would shrink the number of programs the same way Title lX destroyed Division 2 football (Sonoma State, SF State, Hayward State, and many many more).
Maybe this change would shrink the number of programs. Who knows, the future is hard to predict. But I think Title IX is an accidentally good example, because I think the loss of lower level football programs in exchange for equal gender access to sport is a worthwhile exchange just like fairer revenue distribution is a worthwhile exchange, even knowing there might be some negative externalities.
Might be some negative externalities? Might? In your pursuit of some concept of fairness (paying college athletes for their "value") would annihilate college sports entirely. All the changes to the payoff system in CF have already made things much, much worse as you correctly point out, but now the answer is to pull the plug on the system? Sure, let's just do away with the whole thing, burn it all down, it's worthless. No would care anymore if what you really occurs.
Rather odd take for a sports blog, but this is Berkeley I guess.
I'm very skeptical that NIL rights would annihilate college sports
what you want...
I thought I had already posted this response but did not see it upon returning to the site. I believe Title lX was a good call. I was still disappointed however at all the programs that were wiped out as a result and what it meant to the thousands of kids that will not get to play college football as a result. One does not mutually exclude the other. I wish there was a better way to make it work. The thing about title lX though is its all about equal access to sports for women and has nothing to do with getting paid. Despite my sadness at losing Div 2 football, it was a worthy trade off. I don't see the same worthy trade off to pay student athletes, especially when the majority will make nothing and the very small minority will be paid handsomely. And there is something to be said about paying for the pride of your institution. Getting preferential admittance and a free education to a world class school is worth a lot. Our recruiters call it the 30 year program because when you look at the numbers of pro players and what they earn over a an average career, a successful CAL grad makes more over their 30 year career. I'll leave it there and suggest we just disagree, however, I would like to see you outline a plan of how you see it would work without major damage to the current college football structure.
An example of fuzzy athletic department accounting of spending: https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2021/04/06/compensation-college-athletes-inevitable-and-will-likely-expose-some-universities#.YGxSninQx3g.twitter
There's all kinds of fuzzy accounting mixed in to how athletic departments keep their books, to say nothing of booster and bagman under-the-table spending that the NCAA has been completely incapable of curbing or punishing. But the easiest way to measure institutional commitment to winning games is coaching salaries.
I agree that the implementation is difficult. One of my concerns for awhile now has been the role of injuries in determining a student athlete's ability to get to the next level or decide to take his or her life in a different direction. There would need to be a system wide level of payouts to students across college sports that is equivalent, large schools (the sports powerhouses) would have to refrain from paying the athletes more than the poorer schools. The issue of transferring is a problem as is dealing with athletes on winning teams getting sponsorships and celebrity status while others toil in obscurity. The NFL starting a minor league not requiring a college degree would help, but there are still other issues that crop up.
The celebrity status is both the most problematic (as it obviously favors the bigger schools) but also the most likely to happen soon, as the extension of the brand (name, image, likeness) rights that will be given to the student-athletes. There will likely be some cap on just how much an amateur student-athlete can earn.
Since I was just at the NCAA women's gymnastics regional, which included UCLA who has had been infamous in the past few years to have a viral floor routine per year. While there have been some outlet that writes about how much the student-athlete would make if she gets a fraction of a cent on each view, I am pretty sure that the UCLA women's gymnastics program itself has not really monetized those videos, outside UCLA, in general, getting more fame for their athlete going on Ellen, etc.
This goes for the NBA and any other professional sports leagues.
very high probability of a complete cluster F* for a transition.