🏀 KuBuckets Archive

Patty Pat Pat. You sad sack of Mizzou trash. You couldn't help yourself. You have been awaiting this moment. Kansas was finally named in the FBI probe, officially. A glorious moment for the little brother to the East. We know that, on a forum, we would be giving the same crap to anyone else. But, when a "journalist" from your rival clearly writes an nationally published article in an attempt to defame a program, and then claims that work as good journalism, I have a problem.

Pat Forde doubled down on his takes on the Petro show a couple of days ago. I was disappointed with how the interview went, as Petro kept alluding to what he really wanted to say, but ended up not having the guts to actually put Forde on the spot. But I did take two things for Petro's show. The first, that Pat Forde has as much pull in the CBB world as anyone on this Board. When your named and unnamed source have to be the same person, and they are simply a TV personality that can't get a Head Coaching job, you have absolutely no clout in the business.

The Second, and most important one, is that either Bill Self is either a complete idiot, or he is clean and knows it.

In Pat's article, he rips us for Cliff, JJ, Billy and De Sousa. When he was on Petro, he challenged people to find "any inaccuracies in my story." Well, I will concede that he probably doesn't have any inaccuracies, but simply information withheld from the story to fit his narrative. Basically, today's bullshit that somehow passes for "journalism."

Instead of commending KU's compliance department for somehow unearthing the financial schemes, and holding out Billy and Cliff, he acts as if Bill Self knew and that the compliance department is protecting him. How Cliff could be held against Bill Self I have no idea. Bill Self didn't take out the loan for Cliff's mom. But somehow, that makes KU dirty. He uses the same information that, Yahoo themselves released, that had JJ's mom included, but failed to mention that several other CBB stars over the past two years were on that same list. Why? Because providing all of the information discredits what Pat wants you to believe. Pat Ford is on a mission to prove that Bill Self is basically the Don Corleone of CBB.

Of course, that theory only works if you think Bill Self is a complete F-ing idiot. How dumb would you have to be, to sit a player that you paid, only to bring in another kid that you paid AFTER the FBI probe was announced. You would have to be a complete moron. Only a complete f-ing idiot would be that dumb.

So, is Bill Self dumb, or is he clean? You can't have both Pat. Either Bill is so confident that him and his staff aren't involved in anything dirty that he doesn't care who he brings in, or he is a complete moron who has cheated his way to the top.

I find it hard to believe that anyone who has won 14 straight conference titles, been to 3 FFs and won a NC can be considered an idiot.

So, Pat, go f--k yourself.

Bill is clean or KU would be another OAD factory. Its really simple. Self has the resources to flip the switch and make KU another OAD playground but he has not. Miller sold his soul to the OAD devil and lost. As much as I cant stand Calipari he could be doing things the legal way? Duke maybe? The cold hard truth is that KU is just as strong a brand as any and has yet to land 3 in the top 10 like the other schools listed. I do not believe that Bill Self is involved at all! I can not say that for the other 2 schools I just listed. Yeah Pat, go f–k yourself.

This should actually make it to his attention. Not that he'd blink an eye but he deserves it

all aboard the Keegan train as well. Garbage boy at it again..

http://m.kusports.com/news/2018/apr/20/tom-keegan-count-silvio-de-sousa-rebounding-scanda/?templates=mobile ↗

Statmachine said:

Bill is clean or KU would be another OAD factory. Its really simple. Self has the resources to flip the switch and make KU another OAD playground but he has not. Miller sold his soul to the OAD devil and lost. As much as I cant stand Calipari he could be doing things the legal way? Duke maybe? The cold hard truth is that KU is just as strong a brand as any and has yet to land 3 in the top 10 like the other schools listed. I do not believe that Bill Self is involved at all! I can not say that for the other 2 schools I just listed. Yeah Pat, go f–k yourself.

Elijah Johnson walked around Lawrence with some FAT rolls. I mean, maybe they just appeared in his dorm, who knows...

There's no jealousy like Missourah jealousy.

@Kcmatt7 Yep, agreed. More transparent id the journalist’s bias against Self/KU: he goes after a program that Mizzerians known to hate, while this program MAYBE lands an OAD, but not yearly...while KY and Duke bring in OADs 2-3 PER YEAR. So that makes Self the worst thing in Mizzoo...writer’s standoff distance hate cant stand up to the details & logic as kmatt so perfectly put it!

Do you have a link to Forde's article so we can read it ourselves? I get it most of us don't like him, but some of the inflammatory language here makes me cringe a bit. Some of us here have questioned the repeated problems with the guys over the years too. I'd just like to read it for myself if you could find it. Thanks!

@wissox https://t.co/EFF91pFo0k ↗

I'm still trying to fully comprehend Zenger's statement of Kansas not liking to be called a victim.

It appears we will take a hit for all of this, and if we didn't actually participate in the payments or have knowledge about it... WHY aren't we a victim?

It seems that he's laying the groundwork to accept the contract with Adidas.

I think he shouldn't have made that statement. If we aren't a victim, then we participated in the "crime?" We are definitely taking a hit for this. So we have damages. We are either involved in the payments or we aren't. So we are a "victim" or a "perp."

Money is still ruling the day. Very touchy with the hearts and minds of Jayhawk fans. Yes... we know big money is involved. But most of us are drawn to the game because it isn't "pro" ball.

This is a time period where we need to see the focus from Kansas being targeted on the investigation, and to be as straight with the public as possible. This feels like just a big business PR stunt, helping preserve the Adidas contract.

So... I'll ask all of you.... does it appear that Kansas is a "victim?" We did get a benefit from Silvio.... we didn't get a benefit with Billy. If we had knowledge of Silvio's family payment, why would we have still used him when we didn't use Billy? It seems that the Billy situation would have already drawn extra eyes on us, too.

Looks like Mellinger had the same take as Forde. http://kuhoops.com/ku-basketball-news/209330689/ ↗

I do like that Sam blasted the NCAA's rules and focused his column on the irony of KU being a "victim" despite the Adidas contract negotiations.

Compared to Forde's article, that sure felt like a Bill Self slam piece.

Yeah the big difference is that wasn't a hit piece. Seemed reasonable.

@drgnslayr

How about a third option, innocent bystander...

The only difference between college hoops and pro hoops is that the players cannot officially be paid. Everyone else is paid, and generally paid well. College hoops is big business.

@drgnslayr Kinda like a victim of domestic violence that keeps going back.

@justanotherfan The best word is "compensated." The college hoops players are compensated. And compensated very well. The key, as with every situation where folks are compensated, is that they want more compensation. Everyone wants more. McDonalds is a "big business", so is Whole Foods, so is Boeing, so is Google. But entry level folks aren't generally "paid well" in comparison to others with more time and investment in the business.

In fact, in most every business, the owners are compensated far better. They have the risk. Most forget that.

The colleges own everything -- the brand, the schools, the facilities. So let's get real here. The players are interchangeable. The come in, they leave. It doesn't matter whether its Josh Jackson, or the next year its Silvio DeSousa. Interchangeable parts.

Now, because everyone complaining about the compensation doesn't like it, they won't start another league, or provide other alternatives. You know why, in all these years? There is no market for it. And thus, CBB players can see what they are really worth.

All the complainers want, of course, is to change the rules. When the real answer is competition.

@HighEliteMajor

College basketball and college football are big business because of the elite players. They are only interchangeable with other elite athletes. You argue that they are entry level positions. You can find literally anyone to be a line cook at McDonalds, or a checkout clerk at Whole Foods. You can find lots of people to be administrative assistants at Boeing or Google, but not as many to be engineers.

There are a very limited number of people that can play basketball or football at the top universities, and make no mistake, its the top of the pyramid that matters, because that's where the money is.

To borrow your analogy, you're recruiting engineers at Google, but wanting to ~~pay~~ compensate them like line cooks at McDonald's.

Take away the elite level players from Division One college basketball and it starts looking a lot like D2 and NAIA hoops. That's not a knock on those levels. There's a lot of passion and energy at that level. Lots of strong programs. Lots of student support. Just not a lot of money. The players are not interchangeable.

The money will follow the talent, and if that talent flows away from CBB, the money from the sponsorships will follow it. There's nothing that says college hoops (or football) has to remain the development path.

Football is already in trouble as a school sport as it is. Many high schools are grappling with the liability issues around injuries, particularly the head injuries that have been in the news. Participation at youth levels is down more than 30%. More and more former pros are pushing their kids away from football and towards other sports. If those trends continue, that could effectively end football as a major revenue sport.

Basketball is going to end up with a model similar to Europe. I have been saying that on this board for more than a year now. It is going to happen. Already, lots of high schools are getting branding deals with ShoeCos. It won't take much to just direct that money from schools into sports academies similar to how it is in Europe. ESPN already televises some HS games. Get a few more elite academies out there and its really easy to have a league. The wheels are already turning on that.

The last piece is the NBA getting on board. They have already moved from the D-League to the G League, changed the compensation table and added two way contracts. The NBA already has academies in Africa and China. NBA execs have been meeting with European soccer people to understand how to run academies.

All of this has been happening over the last 3-5 years behind the scenes. Now people are talking about it. The structure is changing. The NBA wants to develop not only players, but executives, referees, and coaches, and the only way to do that is to control the development pipeline.

So when that happens, what plan do the colleges have? They have a bloated salary structure that would quite literally collapse if the sponsors moved away from this model and to any sort of new model.

The NCAA budget is based on college basketball revenue (about 90% of the budget comes from the NCAA tournament revenue). Most athletic department's budgets are based on revenue from football and/or basketball. If that revenue stream dries up...

Change is inevitable. It's already happening. Some people are adapting. Some.

@HighEliteMajor Entry-Level people don't have another business willing to pay them hundreds of thousands of dollars to stay and work at their current business, costing that business they currently work for, nothing. It might even cause their very good employees to stay a little bit longer and increase the value of their business and the product/service they offer.

@Kcmatt7 however, the NBA isn't currently willing to pay these kids right out of HS. They also only pay a few players relatively speaking.

Look at the pay scale of the G league and compare that cost to college - at best they are comparative depending on the school.

@Bwag I'm not talking about the NBA...

@justanotherfan I love how the ownership issue is cast aside. How the fact that owners "own" the facilities, the brand, the product --- and the owners assume all the risk. It's the same argument these silly "pay me $15 an hour minimum wage" folks whine about, then they can't figure out why employees get let go and businesses shut down. It's the "evil employer" argument that we hear all the time from one segment of our society, with complete disregard for the risk, the hard work, the anxiety, and the equity invested by owners.

The players are interchangeable -- now. I doubt you disagree with that qualification. I agree that if the top one third left, it would be a different story. I encourage that possibility as my my solution is competition. My solution is to permit every player to test and get his fair market value.

However, where I resist is when there is the insistence to artificially change an organization's internal rules to suit the desires for compensation. Go do your thing somewhere else. Let the NCAA compete with its model. The NCAA has its model. It's a choice. Not the only choice. Lots of choices. When there are more choices, then that will naturally influence the NCAA to make its own choices. I would argue the NCAA should buckle down harder. I chuckle at the idea of "change", as if those that resist are missing something.

@Kcmatt7 So, where is this business willing to pay them hundreds of thousands of dollars? And doesn't that defeat a part of the argument? If there is a business willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the kids choose NCAA basketball, what does that tell you? It tells you that the total value of NCAA basketball is worth more overall. However, if there are not these other businesses willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars, that tells us something as well. The market says the value isn't there. This is inescapable.

@HighEliteMajor Where are these businesses? Well, one looks like an X, the other similar to a check mark, and the other has three stripes. Maybe you haven't read the news.

These players take the money from the shoe companies, and STILL play NCAA Basketball. What does that tell you? The rule isn't working. It tells you that the value of these kids is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. The market says the value is there. This is inescapable.

@HighEliteMajor

At this point in history owning a pro sports franchise is probably the least risky investment anyone can make. It's a status symbol, not a business. It's a monopoly that is set up and guaranteed to make money. The way revenue sharing and such work in the pros basically guarantees a profit for ownership unless they are setting money on fire.

The current NBA CBA limits the amount the players can make based on revenues. The agreement guarantees that ownership will only spend a certain amount on player salaries (the largest expenditure). There is almost no risk associated with owning a pro franchise.

The government protects your monopoly. You can insist on public funding for playing facilities (most don't actually "own" those). The product is the talent of the players, so owners don't "own" that. All they own is the name on the front of the jersey.

So your primary argument, that ownership owns the facilities, the brand, the product - and owners assume all the risk, is patently false. They don't own the facilities in most cases. They don't own the product. They don't assume risk because the collective bargaining agreement and government monopoly protection have reduced that risk to a negligible amount. The jerseys are sponsored, so while they own the "brand", nobody would be paying to see just anyone running around in the jerseys.

Sports has value only because of the players. Without that, the "brands" are worthless. Don't believe me? If you go to the KU Store online, you can find 2013 replica jerseys with the number 5 or the number 23 on them. Strangely, #10 and #20 are not marketed. Looking at the t-shirts with numbers on them, I see a #0 and #11. I doubt any of us has to think too hard about why those numbers were chosen to be mass produced.

@Kcmatt7 BOOM!! Nailed it.

Who gives a flying F*** what ex slave state idiots like that think.

Bill Self's integrity and class are second to none. Period.
No way in hell would he do anything to tarnish KU's reputation or his own. No freeking way. He would rather saw his own arm off than do anything to hurt the university, the basketball team or his players or himself and his family. No way, I dont buy for one second that he is an idiot either. We have all seen how incredibly intelligent and well spoken that guy is.

Roy Williams was a freeking boy scout while at KU.

Bill Self has been even better.

@justanotherfan And the NCAA monopoly is largely funded by the tax dollars that created most of its membership, as well as being able to exist solely due to the ability to use draconian sanctions to stamp out any schools that choose to compete under a different financial model.

@justanotherfan I'm not sure how or why you moved to a pro sports franchise. I'm talking about colleges and the NCAA. Nonetheless, your argument is from the "attack the man" playbook, to run down anyone with money, or risk, or debt. Easy to minimize it when your neck's not on the line. Heck, even if you dismiss that, it's THEIR money, not yours. Surprising. But I know, it's all unfair.

Your final paragraph moves to something relevant. But it again, proves my point. How much would that jersey be worth WITHOUT Kansas on the front? I tell you what, have Josh Jackson just go and sell "Josh Jackson" jerseys. Worth zero. Otherwise, if he could make lots of money out of high school doing that, he would. No, there are not Josh Jackson stores. There are KU stores. Whether its Gooden, or TRob, or Mason -- they're all "0" on the back. Like cattle going in, and going out.

The proof on quality of the game? Look at women's basketball. That's really low quality, below the rim, slow, etc. They fill arenas because of the universities.

If I'm a player and I don't want my number used (meaning the one assigned to me by the school on their jersey, at their school, in their arena), then don't sign on the dotted line. Of course, that would require scrutiny of personal responsibility, and it's easier to blame others for choices. Don't play CBB. I choose to play, knowing the playing field, yet still whine. Good grief.

@mayjay You mean like the NAIA? And, of course, you know the NCAA is not a monopoly. You're just saying that for dramatic effect, right? I know some like throwing that around because it sounds nice.

@Kcmatt7 Actually, it seems to be working fine, by and large.

@HighEliteMajor How is the rule working fine?

Because 99% of the athletes follow a rule that wouldn't effect them whether or not it even existed?

How about you look at the percentages of those following the rules inside just the P5 conferences in football and basketball. You know, the two sports that make all of the money.

Do you still think the rules are working for them? What percentage of players do you think are following the rules in those conferences?

Let's discuss how you see the rule as working fine? Because I sure don't see it working.

Obviously it doesn't really work in the delusional fantasy world the NCAA parades, because most players were getting paid one way or another.

Shoe companies and agents are capitalizing on these kids by getting an early jump. NCAA coaches are visiting jr high's to evaluate new talent to get an early advantage over opposing coaches. People tend to forget about rules when big money is waived in their face. The only real fix is to let 18 year olds enter the NBA draft and move on. That would cut out almost all of the problem. I mean Weed is illegal almost everywhere yet people still smoke it. The law only works if people choose to obey it.

@Kcmatt7 @BShark Ok, play along with me here. Seriously, how is it not working? Simply because there are violators doesn't mean a law or rule doesn't work, right? Nor does it mean that it isn't a net positive. So who is disaffected? Thousands of athletes get scholarships, and benefit, and get an education (including the thousands in the big 2 sports that don't "go pro.").

We have a distaste because of the underbelly of things, which we are largely unaffected by. And the athletes aren't mistreated. They're coddled. Further, the only real issue is enforcement and the effectiveness of that enforcement.

Where's the harm?

The sport (CBB) makes millions, funds schools and other programs, educates millions over time -- the issue always comes back to the discussion point of wanting to change the rules to pay players.

So, what happens if everyone just leaves the NCAA alone?

@Statmachine We should let adults make money, and make a living. But don't think for a minute that will quiet the Jay Bilas crowd. They hate the NCAA and the bullhorn speeches are focused on getting players paid. And when they get paid, it will be "we want more." It will never end.

All I'm really saying is the players have more value than what the NCAA provides.

I'm all for what statmachine suggested in letting them go straight to the NBA again.

HighEliteMajor said:

@Kcmatt7 @BShark Ok, play along with me here. Seriously, how is it not working? Simply because there are violators doesn't mean a law or rule doesn't work, right?

Correct. But if the rule or law is, by and large, not being followed, it ISN'T working. This rule is not being followed by a majority of athletes that make you 99% of your income. That is a problem, and that means the rule isn't working. It is creating a competitive imbalance.

Nor does it mean that it isn't a net positive. So who is disaffected? Thousands of athletes get scholarships, and benefit, and get an education (including the thousands in the big 2 sports that don't "go pro.").

We have a distaste because of the underbelly of things, which we are largely unaffected by. And the athletes aren't mistreated. They're coddled.

Those who actually play by the rules are affected. Athletes who are taking sham classes because their entire life is built on making as much money playing sports as possible, are affected. Thousands of players who don't go pro, could still earn some side cash from endorsements. 3rd stringers from SEC football teams could legit make enough money taking pictures with fans at public events to pay for anything they needed. And, it is your opinion that the athletes are coddled. It isn't a fact or even a reasonable point for this discussion. They live in nice dorms and they get fed. They are also on the road all the time and miss tons of class and work more than most students do. And, more importantly, they bring in more money for the school than your average student. So they should get nicer things than the average student.

Further, the only real issue is enforcement and the effectiveness of that enforcement.

Where's the harm?

I would say that the 3 men that will be going to prison would tell you that there is harm. I would think you would agree with this, as your opinion is that the FBI should have no right to prosecute someone based on rules an organization created themselves. That is harm then, as you yourself have stated. There is harm for players who get injured in college when they could have made hundreds of thousands of dollars in endorsements during that span. There is harm for the families that really do live paycheck to paycheck and they have to choose between taking the fast cash and going pro now or letting a player develop over 4 years in school, while earning a degree.

Do you think KU has just been good because of tradition? NO. Other programs have great facilities, coaches and campuses and blah blah blah. Yet we have won 14 straight titles. That is a competitive imbalance, and the 9 other schools in our league are harmed by this.

There is plenty of harm.

The sport (CBB) makes millions, funds schools and other programs, educates millions over time -- the issue always comes back to the discussion point of wanting to change the rules to pay players.

So, what happens if everyone just leaves the NCAA alone?

The sport makes hundreds of millions, first of all. Let's not try to downplay this. If everyone were to leave the NCAA alone, we would still have players who could earn money at the expense of NO ONE other than the company endorsing them, not making that money. Or they will still do it behind closed doors and we will continue to have athletes with "surprise" commitments

What is the harm in letting players fetch endorsements? "It's a slippery slope" is poor argument. It isn't factually based whatsoever and is really just a lame way to dismiss the problem without actually giving it any kind of deep thought. Because once you start to think about it, you will realize that it would actually save the NCAA money to not have to investigate as many athletes, it would make their product better, and it would help them with their already poor PR. To top it off, and, this may blow your mind, MORE players might graduate leading to a better life for these guys down the road. MORE players will stay and develop and have longer pro careers. These are positives to letting players fetch endorsements. I'm looking for cons, but they are hard to find.

@HighEliteMajor So, you think kids couldn't make money off their own names without a school affiliation? Luke Axtell, wasn't it, who was not allowed to keep selling his CDs during the school year despite having his musical career independent of his basketball? Good thing the NCAA preserved the sanctity of college bb with this one.

You act as if rule changes by the NCAA to allow kids to earn outside money would be horrible, but you have never explained why. The NCAA can change, and accommodate the desire. Why would that be so horrible?

Edit: http://m.kusports.com/news/2000/aug/22/kansas_axtell_unplugged/?templates=mobile ↗

@mayjay It’s the same simplistic reasons. First, NCAA basketball has been around a long time and it has worked. Entertaining, best sport, just a terrific product. It creates high revenue and it supports other sports. We have a great program. Who wants to jeopardize that? Second, the dreaded slippery slope. One you go there, the cries will be to go further. Look at this thread. It always is. And third, every time you open up an avenue for compensation, you create another path that can corrupt.

I continue to be puzzled by this desire change rules for rare kid that wants to sell CDs, or whatever. Life is about choices. Think of it as joining the Marines. A choice. A commitment. And giving up certain freedoms. But a choice.

That ain’t good enough, I’m sure.

This is very similar to a non-compete agreement. Don’t like it, don’t sign.

What I don't think people realize is that, because of social media, there is an entirely new market for advertising. It gives someone with D-level fame the ability to make a significant amount of money through their "likeness." This wasn't an issue when the rules were written because this avenue never existed. Rules need to change when they no longer make sense.

If Doke could make extra money from growing his instagram following by posting awesome dunks and while wearing Nike shoes, and get his mom out of Africa, AND still stay in college and develop like he needs to, that would be a win-win-win.

If Vick could get sponsored by a nose ring company and stay and make money to send to his child, that would be a great thing.

If Devonte could get sponsored by a bandana company (he wears a lot of them), and send money to his mother who had him at 14, I would consider that a win.

If a middle-class kid with no issues at home could get paid and start saving for retirement now, I would consider that a win.

The cons I see of this are the same cons that are happening right now in the black market that the NCAA themselves created. People will ALWAYS try to steer players to a program. So this would change absolutely nothing, other than it would put money in the pockets of athletes during some of the few years they have the potential and fame to earn this money.

Side note, if a Marine had the instagram following that these kids have, he could still earn endorsement deals on the side. No rules against that.

20 years ago, a college players likeness wasn't worth what it is today. It was worth training facilities, room and board, food, and tuition.

Right now, we are at the cusp of it no longer being that. Both Alabama QBs have 190k followers and could easily earn $10k with a single post.

Lamar Jackson has over 500k followers and could demand $20k with a single post. The money is there. The market is there. And it simply wasn't there when the rule was written. It requires much more of a proactive approach than "if it ain't broke don't fix it."

@mayjay

You are making it sound worse than it is. Axtell was able to sell his product at any time but he could market/endorse his product at any time other than the school year when he was playing for KU since he would benefit from his KU exposure.

I saw posts above that say that if we take the elite players from college basketball Division I it would collapse. I will guess that the assumption is that every player in Division I is elite which really is absurd. There are over 5,000 players in Division I and there is not enough jobs for all of them to play professional basketball. The number of elite players is the ones that could make a career playing professionally and that is just a small percentage, about 30-40 that are drafted every year and another 50-70 that would play either in the G League or overseas; this is less than 2% of Division I players and yes, the sport would miss some of the more talented individual players but the overall level would actually be better since more teams would have experienced players rather than OADs, much like Villanova this past season.

The premise that college players are not compensated is ridiculous. I have been doing research with my grandson on what scholarships at major/elite schools cover and even the best academic scholarships do not cover all expenses and even getting a full ride at a school like KU would require the student to come up with a few thousand $ every year. The only conference where a full ride means just that, i.e. covers everything, is the Ivy League which does not provide academic or athletics scholarships and financial aid is based uniquely on financial need.

A few years ago the Wall Street Journal did a story on the actual value of a major sport scholarship at at major conference and the cost was around $50K per year. I would suspect that now, the benefit at a program like KU, UK or Duke with their new luxurious accommodations, elite training facilities and staff, academics support and monthly stipend, the values is close to $70K per year...not bad. If you look at the 20,000 or so students at KU and look at the value of financial aid provide to them, the top 13 recipients would be the 13 basketball player on scholarship; it really does not get any better than this.

Now, if players would be allowed to endorse products like Bilas suggests, wouldn’t this create a conflict of interest with the schools? How about if various KU players get contracts with Nike, Adidas, Under Armour, Converse and Reebok, which uniform would they wear? Would a Nike endorser refuse to wear the school endorsed Adidas gear? Would athletic apparel companies tell schools...we will no longer contract with you because we can go directly to the athletes and end college sports as we know it?

How much would student endorsers would really fetch considering the supply of endorsers is now huge, over 20,000 if you include football and other sports, and the demand small? Other than die hard fans, how many people ouside KU fans would recognize, say Devonté, without his KU uniform and how many people would buy something he endorses considering that most of the so called Twittter followers have little purchase power and their total net worth is the cell phone they use to follow him?

If I create a lineup of 20 individuals, how many of us would actually be able identify the 5 Villanova starters? How many KU fans could at this time correctly identify Grimes and Dotson? Let’s be honest, how many members of this forum can correctly identify more than 5 players in the KU football team? Maybe a handful and I am not one of them. Let’s face it, without the college affiliation which they could obviously not use, the desirability and appeal would be extremely limited and mostly localized. The law of unintended consequences would destroy college sports and for what? A couple of dozen athletes that cannot wait a year to get paid? I say let them go pro and leave college sports alone. When they choose to attend college they agree to follow the rules, if the arrangement is that bad the do not have to attend college, no one is forcing them to do it, they can always join the G League or one of the other pro or semi-pro leagues or play overseas...and they can take Bilas with them.

Let's break down this response a little bit.

JayHawkFanToo said:

I saw posts above that say that if we take the elite players from college basketball Division I it would collapse.
I will guess that the assumption is that every player in Division I is elite which really is absurd. There are over 5,000 players in Division I and there is not enough jobs for all of them to play professional basketball. The number of elite players is the ones that could make a career playing professionally and that is just a small percentage, about 30-40 that are drafted every year and another 50-70 that would play either in the G League or overseas; this is less than 2% of Division I players and yes, the sport would miss some of the more talented individual players but the overall level would actually be better since more teams would have experienced players rather than OADs, much like Villanova this past season.

Are you saying there would be no consequences if elite players quit coming to college? Let's say the top 100 players each year quit coming to school. I would say that probably half of the Shoe company money goes with. That would reduce this sport down to near D2 levels. I agree, I don't think it disappears. But it would lose a lot, a lot of money for the schools.

The premise that college players are not compensated is ridiculous. I have been doing research with my grandson on what scholarships at major/elite schools cover and even the best academic scholarships do not cover all expenses and even getting a full ride at a school like KU would require the student to come up with a few thousand $ every year. The only conference where a full ride means just that, i.e. covers everything, is the Ivy League which does not provide academic or athletics scholarships and financial aid is based uniquely on financial need.

A few years ago the Wall Street Journal did a story on the actual value of a major sport scholarship at at major conference and the cost was around $50K per year. I would suspect that now, the benefit at a program like KU, UK or Duke with their new luxurious accommodations, elite training facilities and staff, academics support and monthly stipend, the values is close to $70K per year...not bad. If you look at the 20,000 or so students at KU and look at the value of financial aid provide to them, the top 13 recipients would be the 13 basketball player on scholarship; it really does not get any better than this.

No argument they are compensated. It is Compensated FAIRLY that is the argument.

Now, if players would be allowed to endorse products like Bilas suggests, wouldn’t this create a conflict of interest with the schools? How about if various KU players get contracts with Nike, Adidas, Under Armour, Converse and Reebok, which uniform would they wear? Would a Nike endorser refuse to wear the school endorsed Adidas gear? Would athletic apparel companies tell schools...we will no longer contract with you because we can go directly to the athletes and end college sports as we know it?

Nope it sure wouldn't. NFL players who these same companies endorse all wear Nike uniforms. Nike just paid a crap ton to be the official NFL and NBA jersey. So, no, these companies will still sponsor school AND sponsor athletes.

How much would student endorsers would really fetch considering the supply of endorsers is now huge, over 20,000 if you include football and other sports, and the demand small? Other than die hard fans, how many people ouside KU fans would recognize, say Devonté, without his KU uniform and how many people would buy something he endorses considering that most of the so called Twittter followers have little purchase power and their total net worth is the cell phone they use to follow him?

Exactly! There are a ton of athletes, and not every one of them would get paid. Why? Because the market would set how much they made. That is the beauty of it. It wouldn't effect 97% of athletes most likely.

If I create a lineup of 20 individuals, how many of us would actually be able identify the 5 Villanova starters? How many KU fans could at this time correctly identify Grimes and Dotson?

33k followers for Grimes and 31k for Dotson. No chance those are all KU fans. So did KU build their following or did they? Haven't even played a game here yet.

Let’s be honest, how many members of this forum can correctly identify more than 5 players in the KU football team? Maybe a handful and I am not one of them. Let’s face it, without the college affiliation which they could obviously not use, the desirability and appeal would be extremely limited and mostly localized. The law of unintended consequences would destroy college sports and for what? A couple of dozen athletes that cannot wait a year to get paid?

This is a purely ignorant take and you are using it as support. If you don't know how much money these guys could make, just don't say anything or try to use it as support. Endorsers would be LINING UP to get these kids. College kids have more buying power than you think. Far more buying power than you think. Especially when you consider that the people following the players are the EXACT market for whoever would want to endorse the player. It would be almost impossible to find a better way to spend advertising dollars these days. I broke down above how much some players could fetch. $5K for one post isn't chump change. One post a month and they are earning $60k. Some of them way more. Some way less. But to assume they have to have national level exposure just to make any money doing this means you have NO IDEA what you are talking about on this subject. None at all.

I say let them go pro and leave college sports alone. When they choose to attend college they agree to follow the rules, if the arrangement is that bad the do not have to attend college, no one is forcing them to do it, they can always join the G League or one of the other pro or semi-pro leagues or play overseas...and they can take Bilas with them.

This take always gets me because what we are proposing wouldn't cost you, the university or the NCAA another dollar. And, according to you, it would only have minimal effect anyways as most athletes aren't worth anything. So, if you let them fetch endorsements, and basically no student athlete could because there is no market for them, how would it effect a single thing?

I also want to say one more thing. You completely talked out of both sides of your mouth in your argument. In this same post, you argued that this could "end college sports as we know it," College Sports are too big to go away, AND that this would effect such a small number that would even be able to fetch endorsements. Which is it? Is this so minimal of an impact that changing the rule wouldn't even hardly be noticed, OR would it completely change college sports?

@JayHawkFanToo Sometimes you nail it. This is one of those times. Everyone knows that it is the universities and the brand and the venues and loyalty that drive college sports. It is undeniable.

@HighEliteMajor and @JayHawkFanToo

Both of you are speaking from the perspective of alumni. But most of the "fan base" of college athletics is non-alumni.

There is loyalty to particular schools because it was your school. But for individuals that are not alums, that is not the draw. @Kcmatt7 makes a great point about reducing things to D2 levels. For most D2 schools, their "fan base" is basically limited to alumni and local fans in the community where the school is located. These schools are very regional in that respect. For big time college athletics, the draw is not limited to regional draws. If that were the case, KU is in trouble because Kansas is not a populous state.

Talent level matters because the quality of play is what makes things interesting and exciting to the non-alum fans.

People in positions of power, authority, or influence are rarely so naive to not know what muck might be around them, and how to distance themselves (legally) from the muck. This is probably more true with politicians than basketball coaches, but I would be surprised if Bell Self hadn't at least heard rumors about improprietary benefits given to his team at least once in the last ten years. If there was something of legal implication, Self would deal with it appropriately, but not knowing anything seems too naive n'est ce pas?

To me, the issue isn't about who drives the market or how much value the athletes have. The money is there. Clearly. A few are even getting that money now. Some are even getting money to try and push them to schools they don't even go to. I think the argument is, do we want this money to be forced to traverse back channels and be under the table to avoid breaking rules and even maybe end up breaking LAWS, or would it be better for the athletes if some of the rules were opened up to allow the money that is ALREADY flowing to them, to do so on the up and up. If the kids don't have value, they wouldn't be getting paid. They ARE getting paid already. And now the FB freaking I is involved in college sports simply because the NCAA is trying to control the flow of money to its players. I'd much rather open up some opportunities for athletes to make a little money, than force them to take weird wire transfers or find envelopes in mailboxes or whatever.

OH, THE HORROR! THE ABSOLUTE HORROR! if we let kids appear at a car dealer and sign autographs...or if they can make a cd with their picture on it and promote it like anyone else...or get free tattoos...or if Devonte and Sherron or Nick could have gotten a portion of the money that has been rolling in due to the thousands of #4 jerseys KU has sold...or if the NCAA said, "Hey, why not clean up the sport by letting legal earnings also be ok by our rules?"

Yes, it would end college basketball. Just like it did the Olympics, where Suzy Chaffee had to wait until she became a pro (and no longer eligible for the Games) before endorsing Chapstick--although the Olympians now are allowed to make millions. Oh wait, I think the games have survived despite Avery & Co.'s decades long handwringing and predictions of doom, gloom, andvthe end of civilization as we know.

I’m afraid our Crimson and Blue tinted glasses are skewing the conversation. Yes most of the KU players can and eventually will get paid for play/ their likeness. However if that is allowed how does St. Mary’s School for the Blind compete? They obviously can’t offer the same exposure/compensation. As it is KU has a huge recruiting advantage because of the national exposure and expectations, but give the players pay for that exposure as well? Completely unfair. i.e. Marcus Garrett KU basketball player signs a $200K deal to exclusively advertise for Hill Billy Juice drinks, would he command the same money if he played for St. Mary’s School for the blind? He’s the same player.

KU football is bad now. Imagine if OU could openly pay players. They have 4 deep guys better than KU starters already. But it’s the same deal - be the 3 deep guy getting paid on OU’s bench or play for free for KU? It widens an already huge gap and competitiveness across the board will be hurt.

If you want paid forgo amature status and go pro- get paid, but lose the exposure and following that even a year in college will give you. I don’t watch much NBA, but I do follow all the old KU guys in the league. And as @KCmatt7 has pointed out some of these guys are picking up 100’s of thousands of followers due to their college exposure. Those 100’s of thousands of followers can be immediately turned into leverage when forming an advertising deal down the road as a pro.

What would happen if student athletes organized and walked out until they were given a fair compensation for entertaining the free world? What would the NCAA do if all student athletes started a movement? How much money would they lose before they made a decision? If I were in school I would get the latest 2019 mock draft for college basketball, football, and baseball. I would organize a shut down or walk out with about 500 of the best athletes in college sports and see how they like that? I am willing to bet the NCAA would cave! These kids should get paid if they are not allowed to enter the draft due to age requirements or restrictions from the NBA, MLB, or the NFL. The guys that are getting paid should not be on scholarship but should be allowed to use all 4 years of eligibility and pay their own way. Then if they chose to get their education before entering the draft they could. Kids like Vick could take care of his family and finish school. Its a win win for college sports and would keep most kids in school that were struggling to make ends meet. I believe it could improve the NCAA product and produce a higher graduation rate if it were executed properly. Just my opinion.

@Statmachine Replacement players are waiting in the wings. The NCAA is old, athletes are only effective while young. Who can wait longer? A rich organization or athletes that are yet to be paid?

@justanotherfan I agree on one piece .. talent level matters. But the overall talent level is not as good, relatively speaking, as the 80s where you had the best players staying for four years. And CBB is booming. Talent level matters to a certain point. There is a point where D-1 would become less of a draw. But it isn't near that now. Take the best 3 players off of every team, and you have the exact same draw and product (I believe).

Do you agree that competition is the best path?

@mayjay Your statement can be said for anything ... meaning you can mock it with all caps, and then start a slide down a slippery slope. That slide down the slippery slope starts with simple things, ones that don't seem to cause bigger issues. But the slide deepens.

Hey kid, come here. I'll buy 1000 of your autographs for $20 each. Just go to Kentucky. Or I'll pay you $200,000 if you'll permit me to use your picture in selling my cars. It just so happens that I have a dealership in Columbia, so the deal is off if you don't go to MU.

So, more and more rules, right? Rules that someone will always think is unreasonable and want to change.

It amazes me how little thought is given to this.

Why not permit a kid to wear Nike instead of Adidas? Why not permit a kid to advertise for the NRA? Or for Planned Parenthood? Where are the lines? Are the lines areas that will be polarizing? Why should schools be able to dictate what areas their preferences will have priority?

Of course, the Olympics has zero to do with CBB. Not the same business model. Not the same product. Not the same scope. Not near the same issues. An irrelevant comparison. Much like me suggesting that McDonalds should pay their entry level folks what Boeing pays their entry level folks. Totally different businesses, and with a much different focus and business model.

And you do know the Olympics are an abyss of irrelevance now, right? It is no longer an event. It is no longer near what it used to be. I'm not suggesting that there is one cause, there are many. But it ain't near what it used to be. Just more an observation.

Kcmatt7 said:

Yes, by all means let’s break down your response a little bit.

Are you saying there would be no consequences if elite players quit coming to college? Let's say the top 100 players each year quit coming to school. I would say that probably half of the Shoe company money goes with. That would reduce this sport down to near D2 levels. I agree, I don't think it disappears. But it would lose a lot, a lot of money for the schools.

You are making two very far fetched assumption, one, that there is actually room for 100 players fresh out of HS to play pro basketball and two, that shoe companies would actually pay lots of money to all these kids who are largely unknown to the majority of the buying market. Believe it or not, the percentage of people with buying power do not follow HS or even college sports. The people like us that post in sports forums and follows college sports in detail is very small and no shoe company would really pay to a HS kid with no collevaffiliation large amounts of money for that small niche market.

Nope it sure wouldn't. NFL players who these same companies endorse all wear Nike uniforms. Nike just paid a crap ton to be the official NFL and NBA jersey. So, no, these companies will still sponsor school AND sponsor athletes.

So, now you are equating proven NFL professional stars with HS or college kids?

Exactly! There are a ton of athletes, and not every one of them would get paid. Why? Because the market would set how much they made. That is the beauty of it. It wouldn't effect 97% of athletes most likely.

...and yet you are willing to jeopardize the 97% of the athletes and the well being of the sport for the sake of 3% that cannot wait 9 months to get paid? Actually it would be much less than 3%. Realistically only the best of the best might be able to get some money and that is the top 20-30 players which is less than 1%. If these 20 or 30 top players skip college altogether, the change in college basketball would be nill and the level of play would actually be better since a quality senior (with very few exceptions) will usually outperform a OAD.

I said...

If I create a lineup of 20 individuals, how many of us would actually be able identify the 5 Villanova starters? How many KU fans could at this time correctly identify Grimes and Dotson?

And you answered...

33k followers for Grimes and 31k for Dotson. No chance those are all KU fans. So did KU build their following or did they? Haven't even played a game here yet.

Cute but you did not answer my question. You have to consider that those 33,000 followers include fans from 20 or 30 schools that follow them with the unique objective of finding out where they will play college ball and once they decide on a school, 32,000 will lose interest and the rest will follow them primarily because of the association with KU.

I said...

Let’s be honest, how many members of this forum can correctly identify more than 5 players in the KU football team? Maybe a handful and I am not one of them. Let’s face it, without the college affiliation which they could obviously not use, the desirability and appeal would be extremely limited and mostly localized. The law of unintended consequences would destroy college sports and for what? A couple of dozen athletes that cannot wait a year to get paid?

And you answered...

This is a purely ignorant take and you are using it as support. If you don't know how much money these guys could make, just don't say anything or try to use it as support. Endorsers would be LINING UP to get these kids. College kids have more buying power than you think. Far more buying power than you think. Especially when you consider that the people following the players are the EXACT market for whoever would want to endorse the player. It would be almost impossible to find a better way to spend advertising dollars these days. I broke down above how much some players could fetch. $5K for one post isn't chump change. One post a month and they are earning $60k. Some of them way more. Some way less. But to assume they have to have national level exposure just to make any money doing this means you have NO IDEA what you are talking about on this subject. None at all.

Which again did not answer my question and you are making projection with no basis in reality. Just because a kid has 50,000 followers it does not mean that if he endorses a product all 50,000 followers will buy the product and whatever audience they have is limited to KU fans in the same way that a Duke or Kentucky player would have zero appeal outside their own fan basis and the appeal is primarily due to school affiliation rather than the players themselves. If Davonte, arguably the most popular KU player last season makes a post endorsing, say 7-up, how many people are going to head to the store and buy 7-up because Devonte endorses it? Reality is that many college basketball fans know who Devonté is but a much smaller number (outside KU fans) could recognize him or care about what he says or sells any more than we KU fans would about something a Duke or Kentucky player has to say or sell. If Grimes and Dotson joined South West Iowa school of Fine Arts instead of KU would you follow them and more importantly would they have the exposure and visibility the will have at KU and would you buy something they endorse? I will guess the answer is no.

Under your scenario, we also start the slippery slope that @HighEliteMajor mentioned and the law of unintended consequences will follow. For example, what if Devonté (using him as an example, not saying that he would) decided to endorse a male enhancement product, a particular brand of condom, a porn website and also advocates for AIDS prevention by using protection, i.e. the brand he endorses...would this be acceptable while he is directly associated with KU? Who becomes the arbiter of what is acceptable or not acceptable? Remember the expression one man’s ceiling is another man’s floor. If one is and another not, would that be a restriction on the use of his likeness?

You and a handful of fans in this forum follow HS and college players at a very detailed level and are very familiar with them and you are part of a super small minority with that much knowledge (and I admire and respect that) and yet, you are assuming everybody has your level of knowledge or interest in the sport. Hate to break it out to you, most don’t.

This take always gets me because what we are proposing wouldn't cost you, the university or the NCAA another dollar. And, according to you, it would only have minimal effect anyways as most athletes aren't worth anything. So, if you let them fetch endorsements, and basically no student athlete could because there is no market for them, how would it effect a single thing?

I also want to say one more thing. You completely talked out of both sides of your mouth in your argument. In this same post, you argued that this could "end college sports as we know it," College Sports are too big to go away, AND that this would effect such a small number that would even be able to fetch endorsements. Which is it? Is this so minimal of an impact that changing the rule wouldn't even hardly be noticed, OR would it completely change college sports?

Silly me, all this time I thought you said that if the elite prospects skip college, Division
I would be like Division 2. I simply posited the the two extremes, the one you though would happen and the one I did. My primary point, which in your haste to discredit my personal opinion, you obviously missed was...why change a system that has been working reasonably well for thousand of student athletes for the sake of of handful of athletes making a pit stop at a school? Why not have them skip college altogether and avoid the aggravation? The sport will not only survive but actually produce a better product.

I have a solution. If you accept an NCAA contract it’s good for four years. Each year you back out early is a finger off of your non-shooting hand. OAD bye-bye 3 fingers. He’s tough as nails, but I’m betting we’d have seen senior Paul Pierce under this mob model. Lol

dylans said:

@Statmachine Replacement players are waiting in the wings. The NCAA is old, athletes are only effective while young. Who can wait longer? A rich organization or athletes that are yet to be paid?

Its real simple the NCAA makes most of its money from a hand full of teams. These teams rely on the top recruits to preform. I will use Duke, UK, and Alabama as a reference. If you took those 3 schools top athletes off of their roster how much would these schools and the NCAA lose? UK and Duke for example. Their season depends on these kids suiting up next year. How much money do they lose if they have a really bad year? Not only the students but the Schools associated with these players would be putting pressure on the NCAA. Does the NCAA commissioner lose his job if they take a nose dive financially? The NCAA would have to take action.

@HighEliteMajor I'm surprised that someone who prides himself on crafting an argument and using logic is so quick to revert to slippery slope fallacies. Surely you know of the existence of the term but boldly use it in your own argument as if it's a logical consequence instead of a well known fallacy. What ifs and slippery slopes are simplistic tactics to scare someone into inaction. You like the status quo, that's fine. But if you are trying to make an argument for the status quo, do better.

Personally, if there are 100s of millions of dollars floating around, I'd rather distribute that money more evenly to the people I care about more, the players, instead of network execs, head coaches, and NCAA executives. Further, it appears, there is even MORE money out there the NCAA is trying to prevent others from making based on decades old rules based on decades older perceptions. I don't have a perfect solution, but change is needed and can continue to be implemented to make the system better. If one change doesn't work, or has unintended consequences, change it or close the loop hole or whatever. Progress and continual improvement is what sport is all about. Even the rules of basketball are in constant flux and rules are adjusted, abandoned, or changed nearly every year. The game survives and may even get better.

@JayHawkFanToo I'm sorry, but you know nothing about social media, much less advertising on it.

My numbers weren't pulled out of the air.

"An Instagram user with 100,000 followers can command $5,000 for a post made in partnership with a company or brand."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2017/04/10/earning-power-heres-how-much-top-influencers-can-make-on-instagram-and-youtube/#33e3a61524db ↗

But continue to assume that nobody would pay thousands of these college athletes.

Here's the thing, we don't have to assume nobody would pay these athletes. They already are just secretly. We all knew it before, but it has been very loudly confirmed recently.

The real question isn't about whether or not these athletes can or should be paid; it's would you rather the payments be open and legal or hidden and possibly illegal? I say possibly because methods of payment seems to be part of how the feds have gotten involved.

I think that the power 5 should step up and make their own paid league!

If a kid has 100k followers on Instagram and wants to advertise bottled butt toots then he or she should be able to capitalize on that!

@Statmachine Right? People talk about how great capitalism is and how free markets are so great, but then only for SOME people. These other people shouldn't be allowed to participate because they can make all the money they want after they wait 9 months. Athletes are held to a completely different standard than the rest of the student body.

@benshawks08 What difference does it make if Gatorade wants to pay Wiggins a million to advertise? So remove his scholarship but not his remaining eligibility and let him play. As long as he meets the minimum requirements to be considered full time student and meets the grade requirements who gives a cats banana?

@Statmachine You have to be careful giving young black men that kind of money at that age. They might do weed or eat crack. It's a slippery slope.

@Kcmatt7 It will be the end of the privileged elite making all the rules, and then the earth will spiral into the sun.

@mayjay

We have a very tenuous system balanced carefully on the backs of certain individuals. To upend this system would be a catastrophe (for those currently benefiting from it financially).

@Kcmatt7

Great point. Or they might turn that into something that benefits everyone in their community (the horror). I know your comment was tongue in cheek. It made me laugh at work.

One of the things I respect most about Lebron James is that he used his immense talent not just to help himself and his family, but also his friends. Maverick Carter, James' best friend, is a millionaire now. He runs a lot of James' businesses. While Lebron himself is probably going to be a billionaire, he has helped several of his friends become millionaires. Rich Paul runs a sports agency and is probably worth $20M. Randy Mims also runs some of Lebron's business interests and is a millionaire himself. That's four friends that all became extremely wealthy even though only one was actually an elite athlete. While all were good HS athletes, only Lebron was ever going to the pros. But because James was able to capitalize on his talent financially, the other three were able to start and build their own businesses as well. Instead of one kid making it out of a run down area of Akron, three did, and another kid from east Cleveland made it as well. They started a marketing agency in 2006, when James otherwise would have been just leaving college. But since he was already a pro, James was signing a big extension in the NBA.

Lebron James has completely flipped everything. He skipped college. He got rich. He stayed out of trouble. He got his friends rich. They have built their own business/sports/media empire. And he did it all outside the usual channels. That's what it means when an athlete has a chance to capitalize on their marketability from the beginning. Not one life changed. Not one family changed. Several. Dozens. Maybe hundreds before its all said and done. And that's just directly. Who knows how many will indirectly benefit.

@justanotherfan

Great post as usual

Kcmatt7 said:

@Statmachine You have to be careful giving young black men that kind of money at that age. They might do weed or eat crack. It's a slippery slope.

You mean like Michael Phelps? Oh wait he is not black!

@justanotherfan Great point about Lebron. I don't want to get into it much and stir things up but I very much agree with you.

A great movie I watched not too long ago from the 70s called Being There touched on these subjects somewhat. Basically if you are white, wear a nice suit and speak in platitudes you can succeed in American politics, almost no matter how dumb you are...

Statmachine said:

Kcmatt7 said:

@Statmachine You have to be careful giving young black men that kind of money at that age. They might do weed or eat crack. It's a slippery slope.

You mean like Michael Phelps? Oh wait he is not black!

Just making sure you understand he was joking.

I caught that. I am just joking around.

Also LOL at Michael Phelps.

Interesting rumor going around here in TX. UT is not accepting college applications from the state of Colorado? Supposedly its because they are all high on the Devils Lettuce?

@justanotherfan Remember, unionization was going to result in the death of professional sports. Instead, players have earned millions while owners' franchises have become valued as high as 2 billion.

Does anyone else remember the haberdashery sign at old Municipal Stadium where a player could win a free suit if he hit the sign with HR? Quaint! Now the Cavs show up to games in matching $5,000 ($10,000?) suits. It was to symbolize their team unity but in a larger sense also symbolizes players' new power. Too bad the sport is dead, and all that other stuff.

@mayjay You are just crushing it today. Two great examples of how empowering athletes is only making sports get better.

@Kcmatt7 Ya ain't doin' so shabby yourself, young man!

Lots of good posts popping up today. I think I have upvoted more posts today than in any single day every. Tons of thought provoking stuff. Great to see, even when we don't all agree on something that good points can be made here.

The NCAA commission released its findings today.

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/23311712/commission-college-basketball-shares-recommendations-ncaa ↗

Lifting the OAD rule or making freshmen ineligible to play in college is a good start. Like I have said before it would stop most of the dirty dirty that is going down right now... Recruiting would change a lot! The top recruits would be signing really late! The "way too early top 25" would be hard to do until after NBA combine. UK and Duke would be sweating bullets all year wondering if their verbal commitments are going to go pro before ever stepping foot on campus? I like it a lot!

@BeddieKU23 Far better than any solutions I’ve read elsewhere. Hope they implement the harsher punishments and clean up the OAD junk. This should allow the college game to continue to be great. Another version of the NBA is just another league I wouldn’t watch.

This is a political discussion. That's all this is. If one reads the commentary of @Kcmatt7 @mayjay and @justanotherfan, this is the leftist mantra.

Today, we see the reference to race by @Kcmatt7 and the "privileged elite" by @mayjay, and the 'benefit(ting) everyone in the community" from @justanotherfan -- That's what this is. The leftist dogma that overwhelms any real perspective on the college basketball discussion.

It is very simple. Leftists, in the big picture, want to redistribute wealth. They want to take what someone else owns and earns, and give it to others.

It's the infamous social justice arguments. Everything is so unfair. Find someone, call them evil because they have more, and whatever follows is justified. It's easy to join the arguments, it's easy "feel" bad because something is "unfair." It's easy to say that someone is privileged to make you feel better because you (or others) are relative failures, or not as smart, or not as motivated, or not as hard working. It's an ignorant pursuit. The "x" factors are ignored. That is all this is.

No one in the NCAA or CBB is stopping a college basketball player from making a living. All they are saying is that if you play under our umbrella, there are rules. Our rules. It's really that simply. The crying and whining is about an organization's rules -- rules no one is forced to be a part of.

Ah, but that would invoke a phrase that leftists hate -- personal responsibility.

It drives the leftists mad. How dare the NCAA and universities construct rules that the leftists see as unfair? They demand to change the rules.

Instead of making your own business, and earning your own money, the preference of the leftist is to take what another has made and earned, and give it someone else. Here, they want to take money that is not the players' money to begin with, and give it to the players.

It doesn't matter that the player coming into CBB doesn't own the product, doesn't own the facilities, doesn't own the TV and shoe contracts, and did nothing to build the product. It doesn't matter that the player enters CBB and the rules of CBB voluntarily. That is all ignored by the leftist.

And, again, that goes to the leftists core beliefs. Just let the player and parents off the hook for entering the contract. Abdicate personal responsibility. Blame others for your lot in life. Blame others for failures. Heck, blame inanimate objects. That's the left.

Oh, I know. It's tugs at the heart strings. These poor players. Many have nothing. Many have one parent. Many families have nothing. So, it's easy, pay them. Oh, and it's easy to pay them so they won't cheat. Right.

It is a much greater intellectual exercise to resist the urge of "feelings" and what is "fair."

As I referred to quite a ways up in this thread, it's no different than stupidity of insisting on an artificial $15 an hour wage when the skill set and market won't support it, and then bemoaning the evil business owner that trims his staff. To be an owner, it has to be worthwhile. The risk/reward has to be there. That is ignored.

Anytime there is money, the leftists will want to take it. Doesn't matter whose money it is. That's all this is, just in another package.

@HighEliteMajor That entire piece you just wrote would have been a great response to people saying that Universities and the NCAA should pay the players themselves. Great response.

Not what I or others have been saying though. There is free money on the table from outside sources, and legally, the NCAA or Universities can't capitalize on that money ever since the O'Bannon case. But, they won't let the players capitalize on it. The market WOULD support this. This IS NOT people saying the owners of the company should pay more. Simply that the owners of the company shouldn't restrict their employees from other sources.

I don't want to take money from the NCAA, or the schools, or anyone not willing to GIVE money to the players. And, if the NCAA didn't want this to be an issue, they would have had the commission that released its findings this morning, a long, long time ago. The only reason they did this in the first place was because of the FBI findings. Nothing else. They would have continued to let players get paid under the table for forever if the FBI never got involved.

Again, I think you just can't wrap your head around the endorsement piece of the argument. For some reason... Other than argue "its a slippery slope" with no ACTUAL reasoning behind your feelings.

BShark said:

All I'm really saying is the players have more value than what the NCAA provides.

The top 1% do, the rest do not. Go look at the G-league attendance.

@HighEliteMajor You define the voice of unreasoned privilege that has its own mantra, "I love things the way they are so long as I get to keep mine."

I am sure you struggled hard and long to be white and middle class, and that you carefully chose your SM school district. You have no clue about the world that doesn't look like you, talk like you, or think like you. Your response to people with opposing opinions is invariably to lump them into some group you see as inherently incapable of thought. It is an old, and pathetic, ritual of yours.

We are probably working pretty hard on locking this bad boy up. Good posts everyone.

Gosh... just look at the suggestions of that basketball panel. Basically, they advise for so much clean up.... clean up the NCAA should have done decades ago. As @HighEliteMajor said... the real problem is in enforcement.

What we really need is a deep investigation into the NCAA. It isn't enough to just say they lacked the ability to enforce. They have been exposed to all those lose shoeco dollars just like schools and athletes are.

Anyone in here think the NCAA is squeaky clean and not taking donations/kickbacks/freebies/kickbacks? It could be done on an institutional level and/or within individuals. I guess the NCAA only has saintly staff members.... yeah, right!

@HighEliteMajor Ah yes, the ever leftist goal to deregulate a market. Clearly political.

Am I to understand that you are arguing that when discussing the financial dealings of college basketball we should "resist the urge" to do what "feels" right or what is "fair"?

It always strikes me as odd when people resist changing a system. Why not try to make it better? And if we are going to make it better, who should we make it better for? For me, my priorities would be the kids, then the schools, then the fans, and last the execs. I guess that could be construed as trying to redistribute wealth, but really I haven't even been arguing in this scenario that anyone should make less or give up anything.

One intellectual exercise I like to engage in is thinking about who wrote the rules? Why did they write them? Can they be improved? Are there any unintended consequences the authors of the rules didn't anticipate? If you are so inclined to care, you might even evaluate if the rules are equally enforced to all stake holders. Are actors at all levels of the system held accountable to the same degree? And remember during this process resist your OWN "feelings" and why not try to make it fair?

Now as a leftist by your definition I'm going to argue that instead of any money going to the players, instead all money that has been flowing their direction should instead be redirected to me. I'm stupid, unintelligent, and lazy and therefore need other people to do things for me. Please give me all of your money as well. I assume you are richer than me because you are smart enough to write so many words.

I also do not own the facility where I work around 50 hours a week, or any of the contracts, nor did I build it. Because of this I am paid no money and therefore need yours.

Thanks in advance for all the consideration and thought I'm sure you will give this post.

I have a bright idea....

I've always felt that the players should receive more $ in college basketball.

But I'm okay for keeping that part as it is... room, board and education. However.... Why don't we have a structure within college basketball to help promote/develop players? Make it attractive for the players to stay in college if they are sitting on the fence on whether to jump. Create an incentive system to help keep players in school. Money flows through college basketball like water... create NCAA developmental centers (with the best coaches) only for use by current student athletes. In off-seasons... summers... Christmas break... open the doors for players to hone their game. Obviously, not every college player could go... but something could be figured out that is fair.

In some ways, my idea almost sounds more like something for the pros... but so does so many of the ideas proposed for solving college basketball. The big bucks are there, so it is hard to keep it "amateur." And it is pro basketball that is the enticement for players to leave school early.

All new solutions should put the student-athletes first. Put that at the top of the list and then there are great solutions everywhere.

@drgnslayr People have floated the idea of compensation to the kids that increases for each year they stay in school. You could couple it with increases for higher grades, or even make it dependent on a certain GPA. Incentivize staying in school.

@mayjay Privilege. What a joke. It's the refrain of the loser. You are a deep blue leftist, aren't you? Everyone has challenges. Height, weight, health, brains, looks, dexterity, eye sight, strength, coordination, finances, ability to articulate, etc. The one thing that is undeniable is that if you fixate on your challenges, you cannot achieve. It's easy to hold on to that because it gives one a built in excuse for failure. There is nothing in this country that anyone is prohibited from achieving. Chew on that. The "privilege" whiners want to take, not earn. I challenge anyone to compete with me, and beat me. But when folks with your un-American mindset want to take what I have, uh, yea, I think I'll challenge that.

What you and others clearly ignore is that my approach is what made this country great. It isn't fair. But it created the greatest country on earth. Folks like you ignore history, ignore the rest of the world, and ignore the alternative. There is no better alternative anywhere on earth. I laugh when folks point to a few European countries -- that wouldn't exist (vs. Nazis or Soviets) if America didn't step in, and continue through today to provide the free world safety.

Of course, everything I've ever said on this topic is encouraging of players earning whatever then can. Free market. Go do it. Someone mentioned Lebron. Terrific. Well earned. Not a jealous bone in my body. Do I wish I had his talent? Of course. I don't. But I utilize my skills to make money, best I can.

But do I fixate on the physical "privilege" that God gave Lebron? Nope. Why did he deserve that? How did he earn his genetics? Anymore than why did Chelsea Clinton or George W. Bush deserve their place in life? Basketball is just a game. But our system puts value on what Lebron does. More value than on what Chelsea or George W. does/did. It's not fair, though, right? Lebron, Chelsea, or George W.

Nothing in life is fair. Someone's always got it better, and someone's always got it worse. The best solution is to permit folks avenues to compete and achieve. And in America, everyone can do that.

@benshawks08 No, telling an organization how to run it's business is what we're discussing. You're reference to "deregulation" is wildly misplaced. I'm for a free market that competes with the NCAA. And if the free market beats the NCAA, then that's how it goes. It won't. The product is too good, and the opportunity is too good. Top players play CBB. The total package is too good.

And fair? Fair is taking someone's money and giving to someone else. Hmmm. Interesting. Your priority would be the kids. Sounds admirable. If that's the case, I suggest you donate half your earnings to a charity supporting kids, I mean, since that's your priority. You can live more frugally I assume, since kids are your priority. Is it easier to give away someone else's money?

I want players to earn millions. But unlike @mayjay, I don't begrudge rich people, or institutions, for being rich and wanting to keep their money.

The more I read, the more this really is like when the Olympics switched from pure amateurism to letting athletes get paid through endorsements. It only made the IOC more money because it drew better athletes.

In the NCAAs case, it would actually improve the product to let the players fetch endorsements as there would be no rush to try to go pro.

It didn't ruin the Olympics or get out of control. Endorsements only go to those athletes with market value. The same would go for any of the NCAA athletes.

@HighEliteMajor I don't begrudge rich people. I hope like you suggest they give as high a percentage of their income to charity as I do, maybe even more since they have more disposable income. I have a hard time begrudging institutions because they are generally set up for a specific purpose and generally do their best to achieve that purpose. I do however, begrudge systems that you say "permit folks avenues to compete and achieve" but don't provide an even playing field for that competition. I imagine you might protest if certain teams started basketball games with more points because they were favored to win. Or even if certain players are allowed more steps between dribbles because it looks like they have talent.

Also, where have I or anyone else genuinely argued that anyone should take someone's money and give it to someone else. I hope you weren't reading my last "argument" literally.

I work every day with kids from underprivileged backgrounds. Kids that have only one parent and multiple siblings. Kids who will be the first in their family to go to college. Kids who are learning their second or sometimes third language. Kids with disabilities. Kids who care for their siblings all evening because their parents are working 2-3 jobs. If you want to see what privilege looks like, come talk to my kids. Realize just how much where they are born, who their parents are, how much money their parents make, how much education their parents have, put them at a disadvantage to kids with different circumstances. Privilege is anything but a joke.

You know what else is a joke? The guy who focuses on every negative aspect of every game then spouting that "the one thing that is undeniable is that if you fixate on your challenges, you cannot achieve." Can more be accomplished by focusing on strengths? Sure. Scientific research says so. But we already know your opinion on "science."

@HighEliteMajor Again, spoken from a position of privilege. Don't get me wrong, I have the same privilege you do: white, middle class, parents who chose the SM school district, and parents who instilled a great set of values.

Unlike you, I don't think I got to where I am solely due to competing more successfully on a level field. That field is tilted heavily in my direction. The difference is that I encourage efforts to recognize that tilt and to find ways for everyone to have my same advantages. You resent those efforts and decry people like me as unAmerican.

No, you are the one with unAmerican values. While you claim to be so patriotic, you ignore the true lesson of America: the constant striving for freedom and equality for everybody regardless of the circumstances of birth. I, the unAmerican, took an oath to defend the country and the constitution, and then spent my professional life working to help people obtain justice. I have not heard of any public service you have performed--other than your constant refrain whining about people who do not see the world through your warped eyes.

I am done with you, because you are just an endless recital of the same BS contributing nothing to civility, discourse, or community information. Unless, as you did before, you want to threaten me again and then we can arrange insults at 10 yards or something.

Offseason is off to a hot start.

@HighEliteMajor

This isn't leftist mantra. What I talked about was straight up capitalism. The players have a skill. That skill has value. People are willing to pay for that value. The only issue is that the NCAA has decided to cut the players out of that deal. Not because players can't make money. If they couldn't, these companies wouldn't be throwing money at them.

If the NCAA wants to clean things up, that's perfectly fine. But they won't. Why? Because the only way to clean up college hoops is to push the money out of the game. If the TV and apparel and sports drink contracts go away, the money to pay illegally goes away. The corruption goes away. You can't have that much money and keep it out of the hands of the people generating the revenue (nobody's paying to see Bill Self and Jay Wright shoot jump shots) without creating a situation that invites corruption.

Corruption. There's something interesting about it. Places with the highest corruption tend to have very low paid public servants. Why? Because its worth the risk to take a little money on the side if you have the power to approve this permit or that license. Same thing applies here. It's worth getting $100,000 for a kid, regardless of whether he plays NCAA hoops or not. That's not leftist. That's capitalism.

Your argument is that only certain people should be able to benefit from capitalism. Except that's not how capitalism works. The NCAA system is draconian. The rules were written when the only money flowing into the system was from illegal gambling. Now the NCAA is taking money on top of the table from ShoeCos and others, and those same entities are paying players under the table. The only way the NCAA can fix this is to turn off the faucet. Stop the flow of money. They can't accept the money on one hand and then make the players the villains for taking the same money.

Except that would end it all because if the NCAA turns off the faucet, somebody else will turn it on...

I will just put this here...!0_1524695119046_cba6b100ba26b137542ec0dc2b4cc223.jpg ↗

Do all high school graduates have to go to college? No.

Then explain to me why it is legal to force our youngsters to go to college for one year or sit out and twiddle their thumbs for one year before pursuing their dream of professional basketball.

Then explain to me how it is legal to have different eligibility requirements for different sports.

@HighEliteMajor , you say the system isn't broken. I want to introduce a thought experiment. Let's say De Sousa's guardian took cash money from an Addidas agent to pay off an earlier payment from UA that was intended to steer De Sousa to Maryland. De Sousa doesn't know about the money and signs an affidavit of his amatuer status with the NCAA. No one from KU was involved and had any knowledge. Later, the NCAA finds out that the guardian took money and declares that Silvio was ineligible for the past season. The NCAA then vacates every game that Silvio played in and as a result, KU's Big 12 conference championship, tourney championship, and Final Four are vacated. If that were to happen, is that fair? Is that fair to Bill Self, Devonte Graham and Svi? Is that fair to De Sousa? Is that fair to the fans? No one is going to jail. It's just a vacated season. Bill Self is still in the Hall of Fame and players may have earned themselves a shot at the NBA. But those achievements matter to people, don't they? Don't they matter to you?

How do you stop players or parents or guardians from taking money? Do you think it's possible to stop people from accepting money? Do you think it's possible to know about every such transaction? Is KU supposed to audit every single financial transaction of all family members and any other connections to a player? Is that even possible? How can you punish a player or an organization for what a family member did in secret? What would have happened if Billy Preston didn't get in a one car accident before the season?

I personally think the players deserve more compensation. The schools and organizations may own the courts and the TV rights, but I'm not tuning in to see a Jayhawk on a court. I'm tuning in to see the players. Billions of dollars are being made from these kids. But I don't know how you would do it, and no one cares about my opinion anyways. Furthermore, even if I were to make suggestions, that is not the same as telling someone what to do. I like the idea of allowing endorsements, but I'm not eager to read about Romeo Langford getting paid $250k from a booster to go to KU. And if you allowed endorsements, I acknowledge that it may be great for KU basketball but horrible for KU football. Not my call though to say a kid can't make money by posting a few things on Instagram every month. That's money that could lift a family out of poverty, and the opportunity could be taken away in just one bad fall.

I don't know what the answer is. Doesn't really affect me either way. But I would sure hate to see KU get a Final Four and a conference championship streak vacated because a family member took money in secret.

Kcmatt7 said:

Offseason is off to a hot start.

Only 7 more months as well. Not that I'm counting

@mayjay

Then you just compete "amateur" dollars with pro dollars.

What these kids need in college isn't money. They need the best coaching and environment to develop into being the best.

That is worth far more than a few bucks. And paying them more money in college just makes them feel that much more likely to turn pro sooner because they think they are missing much bigger cash.

College is their last amateur world. It should be all about lifting their game instead of dropping a few bucks in their wallet.

@Gunman

One word.... corruption!

@Gunman By some twisted logic, the antitrust laws involving concerted labor practices that create a bar to entry do not apply when the workforce already in the industry has agreed to the barriers under a collective bargaining agreement.

That is the technical reason. The real reason is that the owners give more money in the CBA to the players to extract the agreement to disallow the youngsters. And that is crap. Or, as @drgnslayr says, corruption.

This conversation has gone ugly.

Everyone take a deep breath and look outside at the world. Do you see the spring flowers blossoming? Or do you see the neighbor's fighting?

Our social climate has become ripe for giving people the opportunity to unload baggage on others. So much of this is politics, and the corruption from both sides to appear "superior" by painting the other side negatively. And that negativity is built through generalizations and distortions... anything to "win."

Look... this forum is shared by many. And many people don't appreciate this going negative, especially negative and personal. This should be the place where people of all colors and political ideas come together to talk Hawk ball. In that one area we all become equals... brothers and sisters of Lawrence!

I'm a person of color. And I can identify with racism and inequality. But I can also identify with putting those things behind me so I can strive and be happy in this world. I don't feel like I'm a victim, because I have decided I'm not one. Have I been discriminated against? Heck yes. But I don't harp on it because I'm too busy creating fruit for life and my family's life.

I've recently been attacked for not being PC enough. Yikes! My goal is peace on this earth, meaning... I don't want to offend anyone. Yet... a few of my old words don't sound right today. What happened to being understood for intent?

The world is one big, dry batch of kindling and anything can be used as a match.

Time to bring out the hoses! Let's all strive to be the best people we can. That usually means accepting imperfections in others first. Learn to laugh with others (and not at them)... start by accepting funny things about yourself! Smiles and positivity go along ways.

I don't take the racist rantings of progressives very seriously. I understand they are clueless to their sordid history. They don't realize their movement was founded on the blood of the Native Americans in what is known as the Trail of tears. They don't know their founder was a slave owner, or that the entire confederate army was made up of democrats. They don't know they fought a war in order to enslave the black man, and when that didn't work out, then the democrats founded the KKK in order to terrorize blacks all over this country. They don't know that every Jim Crow law was written by a democrat- that the "deep racist south" was really the deep racist democrats who controlled the south for well over 100 years, and set up a palatable racist state where blacks were scorned for everything, and anything to "keep them in their place". They don't know the US Military was segregated by color by democrats. They don't know that US Japanese citizens were segregated by democrats. So, I realize that many lightweight progressives that are now spouting the same racist chants against whites today are using the same racist tactics used against blacks during and after the civil war. Hypocritical? Absolutely. The biggest racists in the history of this country are now mindlessly picking out another group to savage, demean, and run into the ground, as they did against Native Americans, and blacks. So, when you bring up "white privilege"... to me, the voice I am hearing is an echo of other racists of the past spewing hateful rhetoric as part of a hateful, demonic entity that has been an evil presence in America since the early 1800s. How dare you lecture us about racism. When will you ever adopt what MLK said about race...about the content of a man's character instead of the color of his skin? You'd never do that though, would you, Lefty?You can't morally preen around if you can't look down your nose at somebody, right?

@KUSTEVE

Until the late 1950's, African Americans in this country primarily voted Republican because, as you correctly observe, Democrats had until that time historically been oppressive not just to African Americans, but all people of color.

If you had written your comment in 1956, I would be wholeheartedly applauding every word.

But something happened along the way. There was a civil rights movement. Nationally, Democrats largely supported this movement, and suddenly the Democratic party welcomed people of color, while the Republican party ended up implementing the Nixon Southern Strategy, which was basically strategic fearmongering in white areas in the south - opposing integration and the civil rights movement by preaching "law and order", telling white citizens that integration and civil rights would threaten and in fact upend their way of life.

Almost overnight, African Americans went from voting about 90% Republican to about 90% Democrat.

Its no mistake that while the founding members of the KKK were Democrats, the members of today's KKK, neo-Nazi and White Nationalist movement are almost exclusively Republican.

That is not to say that all Republicans are a part of those groups, or ascribe to the beliefs of those groups. That would be a foolishly overbroad generalization. But it is a fact that while those individuals were at one time aligned with the Democratic party, after the civil rights movement they left the party en masse and joined the Republican party.

Yes, the people that perpetrated the atrocities you noted were Democrats, but their descendants today are not. You cannot just ignore the last 50 years of American political history.

Holy crap. I came here to read about KU basketball. silly me.

When we read the stories of some of our own, Jamari and BMac come to mind right now, we can understand privilege better. Most of us, I'd suspect, didn't have to go to practice in HS hungry as BMac did, leaving behind a freezing cold apartment. We didn't spend a winter in Chicago living in a car as Jamari did.

I know some people get carried away and yell privilege to the point of making us feel guilty for being middle class, but when you think of what people who grew up in underserved communities have to overcome to make it, well, it's just a lot tougher.

I tend to agree with @HighEliteMajor when he says the kids going to college and participating in NCAA sports are receiving a lot already including a stipend, so they are paid some. I scraped by in college paying for a dollars worth of gasoline at a time when that's all I could buy. I also believe that even if we start paying these athletes in college that corruption will still happen because Nike will still want their kids to go to whatever school it is at the time. Agents will still want to influence players to sign on with them. Boosters will still try to find an inside position with their favorite teenagers. Corruption won't end with a system of playing players.

@wissox The question is, would you rather see the "corruption" in front of your face? Or would you rather just know it is going on behind your back?

The next question, why could any other person at KU receive an endorsement deal based on their likeness EXCEPT the athletes. Does that not seem strange?

We are already clearly in a state of competitive imbalance. 13 of the top 25 players in the country went to Blue Blood schools this season. AFTER the FBI bust. Either paying them fixes nothing or it does in fact spread the wealth out. But it can't get any worse than it already is.

I worked a full-time job all 4 years of school to pay for rent, gas, insurance, phone, and tuition. I can appreciate being poor in college as well as anyone. But they aren't a normal student, so comparing them to one is useless. Either they are treated like every other student and can make money off of their likeness or they aren't and they can't. But you can't have it both ways. You can't say, "this is what college is like" on one hand and not give them the same rights as the rest of their "peers" on the other.

What is wrong with the Olympic model? Most of the Olympic athletes get peanuts. But the best and most famous ones make whatever the market is willing to pay them. It has only made more money for the IOC because it has allowed famous athletes to compete in the Olympics drawing more of a crowd and better TV ratings. I feel that a very similar thing would happen for the NCAA if they did this with football and basketball.

@Kcmatt The market is already paying them to go to college.

I don't know what you mean by your first question.

I agree that there is a competitive imbalance. But KU is a part of that too. I wish it weren't there. Coaches should be able to recruit a kid like Blakeny and not have him back out because Louisville isn't a Nike school. And I say that even as i loathe Louisville for their corruption.

As for the Olympic model, you might receive some pushback from the college golfer or rower who says I'm an NCAA athlete too and I practice just as much as the football player. Where's my share of the pie?

@BShark but not all players. Comes down to a few players do...and does that hold across sports and genders. Wow, I see Title IX attorneys eyes lighting up.

So dump tennis, women's basketball, softball, and baseball and use the money to pay the basketball players? Have Bill give back 2 of his 5 mil per year to pay the players? A 2 million per year salary cap in the ncaa. Of course there won't be 351 teams that can afford the couple million or so per season, so there will be attrition. Does it get to the point there aren't more than 100 teams in D1? What's that do to a 68 team tournament?

Does KU offer kids endorsements tired to a scholarship worth millions of dollars so no one else in the Big12 can possibly compete? Does Notre Dame with its Billions in its coffers buy the next 10 national championships? Does Quinn Snyder come back to Duke and coach the
Abest team money can buy every year?

At which point I box up my KU crap and watch the only pure sport left. Worlds strongest man competition. Gotta love cars getting rolled over for no apparent reason. Makes me want a big tire for the front yard to flip over what I'm feeling up to it.

There is plenty of room for corruption in the current model. Once the NBA drops IT'S silly OAD rule NCAA sports will be better. Kids that want/need paid can go pro in the states instead of having to go overseas. Then the bulk of the athletes who will actually benefit from a degree can have that scholarship.

@wissox Why would you receive pushback from them for that? You don't see that from Olympic athletes.

People keep responding to the idea of schools paying players but most of us are talking about endorsement or other outside contractual earnings, not paying players. None of the fears raised about Title 9, reduced staff salaries, or eliminated sports, applies to simply not controlling kids' ability to earn something from outside sources.

Frankly, every time we saw Devonte's face on an ad for KU games against OU (with Trae's cute little mug, too), or for our tourney games, I thought it was pretty weird that they get to use him in ads and he gets nothing. No one else has to sign away those image and name rights. Why couldn't kids sell T-shirts with "MVP Battle for Bahamas" on them? or "BIFM"?

@mayjay How do you possibly think there could be a level playing field if players are allowed endorsement money in college? There is absolutely no way any non-blue blood could compete. It would make the gap between the haves and the have nots too great.

I.e. Any player that signs at KU would instantly have endorsement deals, but that same player at Nevraska may not get any endorsement money.

dylans said:

@mayjay How do you possibly think there could be a level playing field if players are allowed endorsement money in college? There is absolutely no way any non-blue blood could compete. It would make the gap between the haves and the have nots too great.

Isn't the NCAA tourney already that? What non P5 or high level program has won the tourney.

@dylans I guess I missed that level playing field....

But, honestly, you might find kids more willing to stay at home or nearby, where they already have a name. Zion might have gone to Clemson or SC if a local business had given him an incentive. Instead, he is at that symbol of ordinary recruiting, Duke.

@dylans What level playing field do you see right now?

13 of the top 25 players went to 4 of the Blue bloods. That isn't a balanced level by any means.

I could argue that endorsements for players, through a regulated NCAA agency, could actually balance out college sports even more.

But it certainly can't make them less competitive than they are now. Alabama has won half of the NCAA Championships the past 5 years.

I don't see this level playing field.

And if you want to see it worsen allow openly paying players.

@BeddieKU23 uconn, utep, Loyola, lasalle, San Fran. But you're correct nothing recent other than Uconn.

None shouldn't be allowed in the tournament since mid majors have no chance of winning. It waters down a tournament with crapoy upsets like VCU over KU or Chamimade beating Duke. Too many crap teams in the tournament that don't belong like KU in '88 denying the true champion a shot and us the chance to see a double elimination tournament.

@dylans I doubt it could get worse. I honestly don't see how it could get worse than the same team winning half of the Football Championships and 3 or 4 other teams scooping up the entire top 25. It can't get much worse if it didn't actually get better.

And this would obviously have to be regulated. But I'd rather we have basketball players get paid and be more likely to stay and graduate and be productive members of society in the future than unpaid guys desperate to leave who could end up being a drain on society in 10-15 years.

The product this board would put together as the NCAA is something that would drive me completely away from sports. KU basketball is the only sport I genuinely care about, but this would absolutely ruin it.

Thank God everything written here is fan fiction and no one has any power! This time of year it's just us overly bored with wild imaginations I guess.

@Kcmatt7 I take it back, you lack imagination if you can't see how it could get worse.

@dylans Just me personally, it isn't like I am saying just let them fetch endorsements with no rules.

There should be rules in place for this. And perhaps a cap that a player could take each year.

I am definitely not saying let's turn this in to the Wild Wild West. I'm just saying that there is a way to do this where everyone wins.

Let's be honest about something. Money already dictates who makes the NCAA tournament. It's not about strength of schedule, wins or losses. It's about money.

This article ↗ from the Ringer talks about how Loyola is one of a dying breed of Cinderella.

There's also this glorious quote from the article:

The tournament is the NCAA’s only event that pays a cash reward. A team making a tournament appearance earns $1.67 million for its conference; each subsequent win in March Madness earns the league an additional $1.67 million. Every conference wants to add teams that have a higher potential for NCAA tournament wins because that success can boost the entire league’s finances. Every school wants to join leagues with more NCAA tournament–caliber teams because that prize money is evenly split throughout the conference.

Loyola, had they lost to Northern Iowa, wouldn't have gone to the Final Four. They would have gone to the NIT, same as Middle Tennessee State and Vermont, two teams that dominated their league in the regular season, then lost in their conference tournament and missed the NCAA altogether.

The money is spilling out from all sides. The NCAA is pushing money which has dictated conference re-alignments (and is killing mid-sized conferences). Why not just put the money on top of the table for everyone. Make it transparent why certain teams are left out on Selection Sunday (Middle Tennessee) while others (Oklahoma) get in.

Corruption exists at the highest level of the organization.

To @dylans point, the reason that mid majors haven't won the tournament in years is that the strongest mid majors are typically either underseeded or miss the tournament entirely if they don't win their conference tournament.

Memphis, Cincinnati, Wichita State, UNLV, Butler, George Mason - all have made the Final Four from outside a P5 conference over the last 30 years. But look at that list again. Almost all of those schools have changed conferences since that Final Four appearance.

When players declare for non-P5 schools, how many on this board allege impropriety? The playing field is already severely slanted and this report does nothing to level it.

Imagine how fair that would be... Set the cap at $200k/year. Pretty much everyone in the country could come up with that kind of cash for a single player. If you knew you could only make $200k for the year, why wouldn't you just pick the school you actually wanted to go to?

That right there, is far more fair than the current system.

@dylans Can you elaborate how this would ruin KU Basketball?

What draws you to it? That the corruption goes on in the background and you can pretend that it isn't happening?

That is quite an imagination you have...

I actually think trae young is a good example. He is clearly extremely marketable as a college player but has questionable professional potential based on size. Yes, he chose a school in a power 5 conference but not a blue blood. Had he chosen KU he would have been far less valuable due to playing time, style of play, and in house competition (Graham).

With the opportunity to earn real money off his image which was sold all over college basketball all season long, he very likely could have chosen to stay another year or even all 4.

And it would have to be quiet the argument to convince me that Young on almost any team wouldn’t be somewhat marketable. Really the blue bloods are the only place he wouldn’t be because he might not be the star.

Him returning would be better for him, the school, the Norman community, the conference, and the sport in general.

And yes the gap between say 200k and how ever much a mid-late first round rookie contract is still wide, but no nearly so wide as from 0 to that number.

Smaller schools may not be able to offer the exposure to get the full 200k but I promise there are businesses in every community that would love to engage more with these athletes. Why do car dealerships hire ex athletes? Why did Barry Sanders sell siding for a company in Wichita? This could actually improve the relationship between these athletes and their community.

@benshawks08

Athletes are also prevented from earning money from other pursuits while in college. There was a football player at Miami that is also a music producer. His music was set to be on a publicly released album, but the NCAA did an investigation that put his eligibility at risk. His music is entirely separate from his athletic career, but the release of the album was delayed so that he could earn his royalties, same as any other music producer.

Were he on a music scholarship at Miami, he could be gigging around town and selling his work for whatever the market would bear. But because he was a football player, the NCAA got involved.

@Kcmatt7 That I believe that Bill and Roy before him ran clean programs. That the cheating is out of KUs hands and should be cleaned up by enforcing the existing rules. That people that are fully ready to start their profession don't belong in college unless they are selling dope. That if you ask even the wealthiest person how much money is enough the inevitable answer is always - a little bit more.

Interesting that this exact subject was discussed Tuesday afternoon on 810 AM the offcial KU station in the KC area.

A few of the takes include...

Do you know how much money College basketball spends on direct financial assistant to the 5,000 + Division I players? according to the numbers they researched $224M plus another $16M on walk-ons; this is $240M spend directly on athletes. The average Pell grant is about $4,400 so the money spent on college basketball players would provide Pell grants for 55,000 deserving students. So much for schools not using the money on athletes.

Colleges has always been and still are the place where people go to study and get a degree and college sports have always been and still are AMATEUR sports. People attending college know this before hand and choose to go there knowing full well what the rules are and what is and is not allowed.

Nobody is forced to go to college including elite athletes. College presents elite athletes a chance to improve their potential bycovering all their expenses and providing benefits such as a free education, room and board at often luxurious accommodations, facilities, elite coaching and training personnel, national exposure, providing tutors to help them with school work and even a stipend, all of this in order to maximize future value; none of this is available to the average student that just wants to get a degree.

If an elite athlete believes he is entitled to use his likeness to make money, then by all means he should take all this money that supposedly is available to them from all these alleged sources, be that agents or advertisers, use to live very comfortably for a year while waiting for the NBA to come calling and all the while making money from their likeness or whatever othre ways he can. What is wrong with this? Absolutely nothing, it is a valid option that elite, or any athlete for that matter, can avail himself without bothering with college. Attending college, knowing full well what the rules are and then complaining about them would seem disingenuous at best.

More importantly, why should the handful of elite athletes who think they should be making money while attending college (maybe 1%)change a system that works reasonably well and provides great and welcome benefits to the other 99% of players? Wouldn't the better option be for these individuals to not bother with college at all and just become pros right after HS?

@mayjay , do you think athletes would prefer their image is not displayed at all on the KU website or on ticket stubs so their likeness is not exploited by the privileged people that are so often blamed for everything wrong under the sun? How much do you think Devonte's cute mug would fetch in the open market? How much do you think Devonte's mug would fetch, if instead of KU with its elite coaching facilities and staff and name recognition, he would have attended Appalachia State as originally planned? The answer is likely not much at all which would seem to indicate, as other have mentioned, that the name of the programs name provides the majority if not all the values rather than the individual himself.

In this great country of ours we have things called free market, competition and most of all freedom of choice. If an elite payer believes he is worth that much money in the open market fresh out of High School, then he should take that money, become a professional athlete and skip college altogether. The truth is that without the college affiliation and exposure, the values is just not there, otherwise we would see all the top players skipping college...and yet we don't, right? Even with all its flaws, college still offers the elite athlete the best option to maximize his future income.

@JayHawkFanToo I think the point is that there is room for rule changes. Changes that would benefit some more than others and that could free schools from the ridiculous waste of time worrying about whether a kid's mentor or guardian's romantic relationship with a kid's mother stemmed from long enough before he held a bb in his little hands to allow the purchase of a plane ticket for a family vacation when the kid grew up, or a lunch, or a suit, or a computer, or even some food or a car.

Constantly saying, "You know the rules so don't go to college if you don't like it" is a response that totally ignores whether the system could be improved by considering imaginative ideas and getting eveyone together to try to make it work for all parties, and to try to reduce the influence of hidden transactions.

Saying it works for 99% only means that you are ignoring the information coming out from numerous people saying that virtually everyone they knew playing college bb had accepted some type of impermissible benefits.

Back in the '90sI knew a guy who played at Marymount in Salina after that school went coed (1970s?)and when they rather quickly became a powerful team. Even he said he was slipped cash by boosters and businesses after a win or he had a good game. And he was not even a leading scorer.

The 99% you cite may include hundreds in the big sports who just aren't getting caught. And if that is the case, cheating and lying are rife. So, open it up to more options to kids to be like anyone else and earn some money, and then, as the Commission recommends, hit the cheaters hard.

@JayHawkFanToo

There are three "classes" of athletes in college that the rules affect in different ways.

1. The elite athletes - these are the ones that are going pro either way. Maybe they lose a little bit of money while in school, but they will generally make it up during their pro career later on.

2. The "college legends" - these are guys like Steve Woodberry, or more recently, Travis Releford. They had better than average college careers, but they are not going on to a lucrative payday after college. However, they help generate a lot of income for the university and they also are most marketable themselves during that time period from an athletic standpoint. This also includes the biggest stars in non-revenue sports (women's hoops, volleyball, soccer, baseball, softball, etc).

3. The rest - Basically everyone else. Stars in non revenue sports. Every other rostered player in both revenue and non-revenue sports.

Paying players doesn't matter to that top group all that much. If the system changes, they are going to get a piece of that pie because they are at the top. I think when people talk about paying players, they think of these types, but that's really not it.

Paying players (or letting them profit off their likeness) means the most for the second group. Every non-revenue star, plus all of those local "heroes" in the revenue sports could benefit from at least being able to profit off their likeness. The university sells and auctions off their signed jerseys, balls, etc. They should be able to get a piece of that pie. I know the argument will be that the university gives them the forum, etc. Then why not just sell the ball or jersey as is, with no signature? What makes the autographed stuff special (rhetorical question)?

Honestly, I would rather the NCAA simply allow player's to make money off their name and likeness rather than outright paying them. That way, the most marketable players get the most benefit. It puts the money on top of the table. It allows athletes that also have other marketable skills to utilize them while still in school (i.e., the music producer can make his music, or go out on paid gigs, the graphic designer can make money off their craft, as can the writer, etc.). And it makes all of this transparent, while allowing the athletes to do the same thing other scholarship students can do. The chemistry student isn't prevented from profiting off their work while in school if there is a market for it.

I agree completely that college is strictly a place for academics and to get a degree. Which is why I think games should not be broadcast in the first place. Showing games on TV totally perverts the school as an institution of learning. Tickets should only be made available for students and alumni that want to show their support to the student athletes. Scholarships should only be made available to those that excel academically. Coaches shouldn't even be able to recruit kids outside of the school; rosters should be filled through open tryouts available only to current students. Nor should coaches make more than professors, lest to confuse students what's more important. Nor should student athletes get special treatment or live in special quarters. Players can get a random dorm room and lift weights at the rec center like any other student.

It’s pretty simple. There are people who don’t like change. And there are people who are open to it. You will never be able to convince those scared of change of anything. They like THEIR life with no regard for anyone else’s. They would rather someone else be poor, when they don’t have to be, because it will effect them in the tenny tiniest way.

It’s a sad, but fair, way of looking at things.