🏀 KuBuckets Archive

"What if a quarterback reaches a marketing agreement with a casino? Or a basketball star has a deal to promote a marijuana dispensary when cannabinoids are on the N.C.A.A.’s list of banned substances? What about international students, whose F-1 visas largely restrict them from off-campus employment?"

The NCAA claims no California teams will be allowed to compete for Championships. Ha. I dare them to try that! Emmert isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer to think that threat is going to dent the minds of the California legislature. Those people are more concerned about their hills burning up than a NCAA title, and not many titles coming their way these days anyways.

Colorado and Washington are choosing to ride the coattails of the world's fifth largest economy over the outdated monopoly that has always punished them, too.

This is like the dam breaking. The Pac-12 has no choice but to be "all in." And there are other conferences impacted.

Let's see what recruits do. Hmmmm.... would you rather play ball for a national championship contender or get paid oodles of money for your likeness and endorsements? My guess.... the latter. So now you have the best talent playing on teams that can't play for a title? Suddenly Emmert is faced with major pressure.

Hmmmm.... where does big business go? Now you have championship games that have turned into political nightmares. Do you think they want to be involved in picking a side? In this case, they pick a side if they run their ads. And then imagine watching a NCAA Championship game and it breaks away for an ad being endorsed by a California player. Wow! The NCAA can hardly block that!

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/09/sports/college-athlete-pay-california.html ↗

Great topic. I do think it's easy. All the NCAA has to do is simply abide by its rules. Suspend players that violate the rules. Punish schools that harbor rule breaking activity. California law doesn't trump the NCAA's internal rules. The state court can't make the NCAA not suspend someone. The NCAA can and should just ignore it. The last state's lead anyone should be following is California.

We should all be offended by one state legislature trying to change how a private organization operates nationwide. This has nothing to do with health and safety. It's a preference on how a private organization operates. While I know one side of the political fence just doesn't care about process. They only care about if their agenda succeeds in the current moment.

As @HighEliteMajor said it has never been against the law for players to make money of there likeness. It is against the NCAA rules. This bill passing in CA does absolutely nothing to change that.

The hammer the NCAA has is its rule that disallows its members from playing suspended members. Ultimately, they could suspend (or threaten to suspend) California schools that pay any athletes, and then threaten all the other schools in the Pac12 and other conferences that have Cal schools.

If you recall, the NCAA was sued under antitrust laws in the late 70's or early 80's by the NIT. That suit was based on a restraint of trade theory challenging the NCAA's rule requiring any team invited to the NCAA tournament to particpate in the NCAA tourney only (you couldn't turn it down and then go to the NIT, for example). That rule, adopted in the 50's or '60s, was adopted because some schools wanted to go to the more prestigious NIT and that hurt the NCAA tourney's attractiveness.

The rule prohibiting schools from playing suspended schools was adopted after Kentucky was given a one year suspension for the gambling stuff involving their star players in (?) 1949 or 50. Kentucky had thumbed its nose at the NCAA and scheduled games despite the suspension, but had to back down when other schools got scared off by the new NCAA edict.

This Calif law could lead to a fascinating lawsuit under antitrust laws. It certainly won't be settled the way the NIT case was settled--the NCAA simply bought that tournament, mooting the case.

@HighEliteMajor is correct. There is no antitrust case here. There are multiple opportunities to make a living playing basketball before one is eligible to play in the NBA. The NBL in Oceania explicitly provides opportunities where there is sufficient demand for players.

Football athletes don’t have much of a case either. It’s not like other leagues have taken their shot at the NFL and made it. Pro football is a natural monopoly in the US. You don’t have a positive right to compete in a sport professionally. The CFL has the same requirements, but obviously isn’t subject to US law. XFL 2.0 (as far as I know) is offering to sign underclassmen and high school players. Given that the NFL is collectively bargained under federal law, it’s a non-issue. If the XFL goes under again, ¯_(ツ)_/¯

@FarmerJayhawk I am thinking the antitrust case lies with schools and conferences who are restricted from playing teams, etc.

The NCAA has the power to suspend the schools in those areas, but California is large enough (with enough schools and population) to break away anyway. The NCAA is staring at a showdown that it may not have the horses to win.

Last I checked it wasn’t illegal in any state to sell your image, just against ncaa rules. So what changes with the California ruling? Just more pressure on the ncaa to allow players to make money?

dylans said:

Last I checked it wasn’t illegal in any state to sell your image, just against ncaa rules. So what changes with the California ruling? Just more pressure on the ncaa to allow players to make money?

Exactly. This puts pressure on the NCAA's rules on eligibility. If you are a regular scholarship student, you can profit off your name and likeness in any field. However, if you are a scholarship athlete you cannot.

Chad Thomas, a former player at Miami (now with the Cleveland Browns) was a rapper and music producer in college. He was featured on several major albums, but the NCAA forbid him from promoting or profiting from his music, or they would take away his eligibility (story ↗) That's pretty pathetic, if you ask me. A kid that majors in biology could certainly profit from research that they did. A kid on a band scholarship could play gigs on the weekends for money.

But if you are an athlete, you cannot do anything to make money, or you risk your eligibility.

There was a time when the Olympics didn't allow professional athletes to compete because they were about amateurism. That hasn't been the case for a long time now.

I do think the NCAA should allow student athletes to earn extra money by using their likeness. I would put some restrictions on that such as not doing endorsement deals whether national or local. If a kid wants to sell off a game worn uniform for some extra money, go for it. If a kid wants to do an autograph signing at a local business, go for it.

Selling uniforms and doing autograph signings are ways for kids even a small level schools to earn some extra cash because a lot of D2 and D3 schools are in pretty small towns where the team is a big deal and kid could sign autographs at a local grocery store or restaurant and make $10 a person per autograph or auction off a jersey for $200. Even lesser know players at big schools could do stuff like that. That's no life changing money, but it's enough to have some spending money.

I do also agree with others who say the NCAA needs to enforce their rules equally and fairly across the board, but the reality is the NCAA isn't capable because the don't have the authority to investigate certain issues.

Using KU specifically, we all know a major violation happened because of Cliff Alexander and his mom with that loan. The NCAA couldn't prove anything though because they don't have the ability to subpoena bank records so the case fizzled out with nothing happening.

The same thing is going to happen with Zion because the NCAA doesn't have any legal power and they have to depend on people's willingness to comply after the fact when there's no reason to cooperate.

The NCAA doesn't have the ability to enforce their own rules and that's the real issue here. The NCAA either needs to figure out ho to enforce their rules or they need to alter their rules to the point they can enforce them.

I think the NCAA needs to come up with a list of acceptable ways a student athlete can profit off their name and likeness and allow student athletes to do that. I know my ideas on this would need a lot of tweaking, but I think basic concept of having an approved list of ways to earn money would go a long way.

I think the NBA getting rid of the OAD rule will help a lot as well with this issue.

justanotherfan said:

dylans said:

Last I checked it wasn’t illegal in any state to sell your image, just against ncaa rules. So what changes with the California ruling? Just more pressure on the ncaa to allow players to make money?

Exactly. This puts pressure on the NCAA's rules on eligibility. If you are a regular scholarship student, you can profit off your name and likeness in any field. However, if you are a scholarship athlete you cannot.

Chad Thomas, a former player at Miami (now with the Cleveland Browns) was a rapper and music producer in college. He was featured on several major albums, but the NCAA forbid him from promoting or profiting from his music, or they would take away his eligibility (story ↗) That's pretty pathetic, if you ask me. A kid that majors in biology could certainly profit from research that they did. A kid on a band scholarship could play gigs on the weekends for money.

But if you are an athlete, you cannot do anything to make money, or you risk your eligibility.

Guess what? Don't be a student-athlete then. You have made a choice. You get substantial benefits that the other students don't get.

What's most comical is that the players wanting to make money on their likeness would have no likeness to market except for the fact that they are an NCAA athlete. Right, without KU what does Udoka, for example, market? And without KU, no one would care about Udoka or what he might want to market, or his "image or likeness."

How simple minded is this?

And yes, athletes can work and do many things to make money. They actually get paid for time they spend working camps. They can hold jobs if they want to. Ah, but when the facts get in the way, the response is that they don't have the time. So I'll address that. Guess what, DON'T TAKE THE SCHOLARSHIP THEN!

It's a free country. Go market yourself. Go make money. Go do whatever you want. The only stipulation is, that if you are going to get your college paid for, get free gear, get free residence and food, you can't do certain things. And for those who have professional sports aspirations, you get and incredible platform to market yourself to the next level. Right? Using the universities' resources to do that.

It's mindset of the segment of society (we know which one) that expects things to be given to them that others have.

What's pathetic is the mindset that one can take something another is offering, another party's product, another party's facilities, another parties' resources, and then want to change the deal.

A great idea would be for the NCAA to just eliminate athletic scholarships altogether. Like D-III. Or the Ivy League.

You want to hear these same whiners WHINE then? And it would be unfair. Oh, then they'd have a RIGHT to a scholarship. I'm sure some 9th circuit judge could find it right there in the Constitution (you know, because they interpret it that way).

But you know what, they could market their image, they could have time to work that job they want, they could go to a JUCO on the cheap, and then get more free gov't money in grants to finish their education. And also (gasp) have student loans to pay.

Suddenly, the value of that scholarship seems a bit more worth it to, again, 99% of the kids that benefit.

Let me frame it this way. Since this is a free country and these athletic departments make money, why not let them invest some of that money in players in the form of additional wages? Why not let the players negotiate raises, like people do all the time in the labor market? Because let's be honest about it, it's already happening.

The NCAA already allows small stipends. So why not make it a free market and players get paid by the institutions themselves above and beyond what they're getting now? Sure it'll be incredibly unequal, but this is America and no other sports league guarantees an equal playing field. If you make money you should be able to spend it as you choose. The NCAA should embrace competition with the G League, NBL, etc. if they want to continue fielding a superior product.

The issue then is the NCAA isn't interested in competition, really. They're interested in making money hand over fist by holding onto this charade of amateurism and maintaining market power. I hope the California institutions do leave the NCAA and more follow. Just like there's a market for graduate and professional students, let's enhance the one that exists athletes. In addition to premier coaching, facilities, and a free education, let's provide a market for wages as well, since these players are key in making all the AD's and the NCAA gobs of cash. If the AD's want to spend, fine by me.

I'm starting to think different about all of this.

I'm thinking about Perry Ellis... and him going down in the first minute of his game in Wichita.

College is high risk. High risk to those who should soon be making big time money. What do these top players receive from playing a year of college ball?

They have an opportunity to play in front of a big basketball market, which is worth something... but is it worth everything?

I don't think players receive enough quality coaching in college. They are limited to coaching. That has to be there because they are student-athletes.

Watch the NBA draft and you will see an influx of foreign players who never played D1.

I think players should make big bucks the second they can. Their career "life-expectancy" window is small. Real small. They usually don't have the type of injury that prevents them from playing, but all the banging creates smaller injuries that nag them sometimes for the rest of their playing days. Their game often deteriorates quickly, removing their marketability.

It has taken me some time to form this opinion. But I now get Hampton and others... and I agree with his move. And if there are players just below top-shelf thinking about going abroad to play... do it! If you can sign a deal with good money, why hang out in college UNLESS... (big unless) you want a college education!

@Texas-Hawk-10 I like your ideas

But it is the end of civilization as we know it!!!!

I can’t wait to see the first Duke player Viagra commercial. Or the Missouri players CBD add. Or the Colorado studs marijuana advertisement. Tripper Allen’s jump rope commercial would be awesome!

No, but what will happen is a UK booster tells the player, come to UK, I'll pay you $50,000 to advertise for my used cars. Or the Duke booster says he'll pay $100,000 so he can use the kid's picture to advertise for his pharmacy chain. Or a kid wants to record an album so a booster for UCLA sets him up with his buddy producer who pays him $70,000 for his audition.

And it ... will ... never ... be ... enough.

So no, it's not the end of civilization (a generally dismissive remark), but it will eventually lead to the end of CBB as we know it.

We love KU BB. I can never understand folks that want to set in motion a process that will lead to the end of something that we love.

Why can't folks leave well enough alone? Change is not always good.

And it is "well enough." Players get enough. Their only worth is derived from participating in NCAA activities. Without the NCAA, they're worth is zero (meaning, from a marketing and athletic revenue perspective).

When folks make decisions based on the poor black kid who has to support his family, that destroys any logical analysis. We are immediately supposed to convulse and react with compassion, and that "compassion" is supposed to dictate the playing field for everyone else.

That is how one perspective makes decisions and judgments. Feelings. Contrived or otherwise. Maybe, just maybe, we should be spending more time looking at why that black kid is supposedly needing to support his family. Where is the family? Where is the dad? Why did his brother get shot in a drive by? Why does he have a child of his own and is only 19 years of age? Why do his two sisters each have different last names?

Right, it's the system's fault and the NCAA needs to pay the kids more because of the inner city mess.

That is what this all about. The inner cities are a cesspool -- where many of these athletes come from, so we have to pay them because their family structure is a mess and they supposedly need it. That's all this is.

I saw Tim Tebow attacked this past weekend, and yesterday, because he had the temerity to oppose California's idiocy (referring to the pay deal for athletes -- I know, it could be anything). Not only attacked, he was demonized, mocked, called every name in the book, white privilege, ignorant, etc. Of course, there's always the undercurrent of insults from those on one side of the political fence about his Christianity.

I saw a post by Jeff Allen, a professional athlete. There was a big hit in the KSU/MSU game, and he was mocking Tebow, asking if it was a privilege to get hit like that. Again, these folks are just lacking all logical application. It is a privilege to play. How many kids would give anything to be in that position? That have worked hard but just aren't good enough. And the kid that got hit is playing by choice. Personal choice. But no, because he's playing football and gets hit hard there's something that creates some entitlement to more than he's getting.

It's that personal choice thing that, again, one side of the fence always avoids. One side of this argument has feelings. One has logic. One claims the system (or anything by the individual) is to blame. One focuses on personal choice and decisions. Sound familiar?

Alright everyone start saving up! When this passes we need to get an official top 10 HS recruit spokesman for KUbuckets. Of course he’ll have to play at KU to make it official (get paid).

Ultimately, the money that built the NCAA is going to be what kills the NCAA. When the NCAA wasn't very profitable, they had gambling scandals. As the NCAA got more popular (and profitable) the money ended up on top of the table instead of underneath, but the people that made the big money off college athletics still weren't the players, so there was always a possibility of shady dealings.

Now, there's no way to turn off the flow of money without smothering the golden goose with it. That's just the reality. All the tournaments in beautiful locations, the games on national TV, etc. All of that is a product of the money. The NCAA tournament used to be held in campus arenas. Only a handful of teams made it (mostly conference champs). It has grown so big, but in reality, the popularity of college sports is maxxed out.

The NCAA can't really become a global brand. The NBA, NFL, MLB, etc. are all marketing overseas because that's where the biggest potential for growth is. Other than games on military bases, the NCAA doesn't have any international interest, so the overall marketability of the NCAA is limited to its popularity here in the U.S. There's no more money to be made. ShoeCos get more bang for their buck from the pro game, so if the NCAA starts hassling them, they will just move away from colleges rather than deal with the headaches.

The same goes for TV. If there are other events that are more marketable, the TV money isn't promised forever. There's nothing that absolutely says the NCAA basketball tournament has to be on TV for a BILLION DOLLARS. The money could very easily dry up. I posted on another thread about how much KU gets from TV, ShoeCos, the conference (bowl payouts) and the NCAA (basketball tournament payouts). It's about half the athletic budget. If that portion of money were to go away, college sports would change dramatically.

Actually, let me put that another way. If college football or college basketball were to change in any way, the college revenue pie would change dramatically. Right now, the athletic department at most colleges is outside the school itself. It can do that because ShoeCo, TV, and NCAA money makes that possible. Take any of those revenue sources away (or drain them in any substantial way) and athletic departments become insolvent pretty quickly. Are boosters gonna pony up the $50M in lost revenue every year?

The business model is flawed. I like KU basketball, but I have no problem seeing a flawed business model fail. That's capitalism for you.

@HighEliteMajor From your post, it sounds like you want things to stay the same so it doesn't ruin the sport of CBB. Fair statement.
However, your "personal choice and decisions" statement in the end completely defies logic since the the structure of the NCAA not allowing college athletes to be paid denies the personal choices of the companies that want to pay athletes for advertisement, and denies the personal choice of college athletes who want to accept the money from these companies.

And yes, the pretzel logic does sound familiar!

@SlickRockJayhawk Wrong. In so many ways. Like, not tracking.

You first suggest that my position denies "companies" the choice of paying the athletes to advertise. No it doesn't. Not at all. Can Coca-Cola go to Udoka and say "Udoka, here's a contract for $2 million to represent Coca-Cola and market our product?" Of course it can. There's nothing stopping that transaction except the athlete saying "no." Absolutely freedom of choice. In fact, this is what every kid does at varying levels. Weighs the cost/benefit.

Your next point is that it denies the "personal choice of (the) college athletes who want to accept money from" companies. Not it doesn't. Udoka can say yes to the scenario above.

In fact, Darius Bazely skipped college and signed a shoe deal with New Balance. There is nothing stopping them. Bazley made the decision NOT to go to college and take money from New Balance. Good for him.

And there's that tricky issue of personal choice.

No, see, where you miss the point, and many others miss the point (in different ways), is that the NCAA (as a conduit for it's member institutions) just establishes the internal rules. So if you want to participate in college athletics through the NCAA, you can't engage in certain conduct. Just rules. Not laws. Do you want to participate, take the scholarship, take the tuition, room, meals, gear, etc? And the platform to market their skills? Or do something else? It's no different than if you are working at a company, coaching kids in at rec league, or volunteering for a charitable board of directors. By making the choice to participate, you are foreclosed from other things.

A pretzel is just a tube of bread wrapped in a nice package.

@justanotherfan I'm sorry, but your business model suggestion is proven wrong by years of multi-billion dollar success. By the billions in contracts reaped in he pros by the athletes it helped produce. The NCAA has created a highly successful business. Really, it's quite amazing. Your post displays a lack of understanding of businesses in general. Take away key elements of most every business, and that business can collapse. But that's what folks who hate companies and owners of businesses, of course, ignore - the risk and day to day stress of running something that can collapse.

It is capitalism. And that's good. I've suggested that if the NCAA is such a horrible entity, and product, and it is so unfair to athletes, where's the competition?

The answer is easy -- the athletes, without the NCAA, are not marketable and can't sustain profitability to keep a business going.

Outside of Zion, whom I also wouldn’t have seen much of if not for Duke, I can’t think of a single marketable athlete at the collegiate level when removed from his university and the exposure it creates. The D league and Euro ball both offer players an opportunity to get paid, but they’re not very good at creating the exposure and marketing opportunities that the ncaa creates for the most elite athletes. The ncaa actually helps create ready made and marketable stars from day one of their pro career, which generates a ton of wealth without having to actually perform at the highest level yet.

As an addendum, there's also federal legislation on the issue, introduced by Rep. Mark Walker (R-NC) and cosponsored by Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-LA). https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr1804/summary ↗

The bill would get rid of the NCAA's tax exempt status unless it allowed student-athletes to profit from their likeness, "Section 501(j)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding after the period at the end the following: "Such term does not include an organization that substantially restricts a student athlete from using, or being reasonably compensated for the third party use of, the name, image, or likeness of such student athlete."." I recommend getting in touch with your members of Congress if you really care about the issue.

dylans said:

Outside of Zion, whom I also wouldn’t have seen much of if not for Duke, I can’t think of a single marketable athlete at the collegiate level when removed from his university and the exposure it creates.

The reason this is true is because that's the system that we currently operate under. If, for instance, the NBA or NFL were running their own developmental system outside the NCAA (like European soccer clubs do), we would have examples of marketable athletes aside from the NCAA. That day is coming.

Social media allows many of these athletes to begin marketing themselves before they ever step foot onto a college campus.

Jalen Green, a current KU recruiting target for 2020, has over 28,000 followers on Twitter. These guys today can promote their own material before ever setting foot on a college campus. They have access to social media to get their name, their highlights, and their story out there on their own.

Teenage stars in golf and tennis have endorsement deals. The only reason that's not true for basketball and football stars is because we have put a system in place that prevents them from doing so prior to a certain age. If that system were changed, they would almost certainly profit. It's not like Nike and Adidas all of a sudden stopped wanting to market their products through athletes.

College fans want to keep the status quo because they enjoy the status quo and it doesn't make a difference to them personally. There's nothing wrong with that.

But that doesn't mean the rules have to stay that way. That doesn't mean the rules will stay that way. And if the rules do change, the development process will, too.

These complaints about the "system" are never ending. The comparison to golf and tennis is interesting, thought it is a bit apples and oranges. But those players CHOOSE to turn pro and not play NCAA sports. Right? And when they choose the NCAA, they can't market themselves.

And @justanotherfan makes a completely untrue statement. He says, "The only reason that’s not true for basketball and football stars is because we have put a system in place that prevents them from doing so prior to a certain age."

There is no system that prevents the players from marketing themselves. What prevents them from marketing themselves is CHOICE. They choose not to market themselves, take endorsement deals, etc., by CHOICE. They choose to play NCAA sports. To take benefits and opportunity vs. marketing themselves.

It is this art of dodging the important point that we continue to see. No, it's not CHOICE, it's always the SYSTEM we hear. That's purposefully ignoring the inconvenient truth.

The "system" is competition and the free market. Why doesn't @justanotherfan start a pro league for the teenage football stars? Why would he? It would fold and not be profitable. He'd lose his money. Why? Because the teenage athletes aren't marketable in Football against the professional football players. Why would someone pay to see that?

Oh, but they do -- NCAA football. Why? Not the athlete. They are disposable. In and out. It's the university, the program, the tie to that culture. Plain and obvious. It's KU, not Frank Mason. It's OU, not Baker Mayfield. College sports are minor leagues, but for the tie to the Universities, Allen Field House, the facilities, the PROGRAM. There's much better players in the D-League.

If the BB and FB players were so marketable, and of such value, why wouldn't Nike offer a kid $2 million out of high school to skip college and go with Nike?

Why? Because NCAA platform increases the players name recognition and value. That's why. Period. Nike would rather Zion go to Duke. And it makes Zion worth more overall for marketing purposes, Nike or otherwise.

Jalen Green isn't worth crap. What can he market? Who would even care? If he can't play basketball on a big stage, what is he?

Ah, and if he's more than that, then we get back to the CHOICE thing.

Right, @justanotherfan wants to rules to change, a change that would benefit just a select few, and be damned the college baseball player, the soccer player, the lacrosse athlete, the rower. No, we want our precious, highly ranked inner city basketball player to be able to get a few extra bucks because, you know, it's unfair. That system is holding him back. Just laughable.

FWIW If the xfl gains traction, they are talking about drafting HS players.

dylans said:

FWIW If the xfl gains traction, they are talking about drafting HS players.

And that, my friends, is the answer. Competition. Take players from the NCAA. That will demonstrate the value of the NCAA. But it will also allow kids that are worthy to make money. I am all for that of course. Same reason I was in support of the alternative pro basketball league that was discussed. Same reason I support kids skipping college to play overseas. College sports are a choice.

The contrast here highlights the issue.

Trying to change the rules of an existing entity, regardless of what might result. Folks don't care what results from their desired change in rules. They just want their way.

dylans said:

FWIW If the xfl gains traction, they are talking about drafting HS players.

That would be wild.

For what its worth, I don't think the NFL has any interest in building their own developmental system. They are perfectly fine with the current system.

The NBA... well, that's different. They are not as content with the current state of affairs. College systems (and the overall schedule) make it too easy to hide flaws that get exposed at the next level, or prevent really amazing players from fully realizing their potential.

UPDATE:

https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/california-governor-signs-law-allowing-college-athletes-to-be-paid-for-name-image-and-likeness-as-ncaa-protests/ ↗

https://www.si.com/college-football/2019/09/30/florida-state-representative-proposed-legislation-pay-student-athletes ↗

Colorado and Washington are soon to follow. Anyone know where Texas sits on this issue? I'm of the opinion if the NCAA still isn't bluffing after a few more states join in, adding Texas will be the final blow. I already see this as the end of the NCAA as we know it. They will have to adjust to a new system. Maybe we just need to stall out as long as we can and then we are the proverbial kid in Colorado who is caught with a joint the day pot was legalized.

The times are a changin'. I figure the NCAA is worth about one more silly threat before the bend over and say "uncle!"

The key, as many have stated in here, is for the NCAA to create laws they can actually enforce. Since the system is so large, they can't enforce it without help from everyone; institutions, players, onlookers, shoecos... everyone.

What you don't hear people talking about is the IRS. Suddenly, they are going to be very very interested in "student-athletes."

This is the time for an entrepreneur to step up and start a new organization to compete against the NCAA. No one seems to like the NCAA so this entire country (outside the NCAA) would listen to an alternative. An alternative would attempt to create a fail-safe system, connected to the IRS and DOJ for a presence of transparency and control. Fairness.

BTW: for those not convinced the NCAA is about to take this up the backside.... just imagine for a second this case ending up in federal court, State of Cal vs NCAA. California holds all the cards. All the cards. The NCAA can only sit back on controls from a private organization. Once an organization develops to the level the NCAA has, federal court has long ago stripped organizations of most of their control. Almost every single American is directly impacted by the NCAA.

Meanwhile... expect to see "action groups" organized and buying TV ads in support of the civil liberties of athletes. Big black eye on the NCAA. Again... they lose!

I saw Florida was jumping on this as well @drgnslayr

@HighEliteMajor

It's weird because I do basically agree with you that the colleges themselves add value to these talented kids. I also agree that we love college basketball and would like it to continue. It just seems to me that there is some room for change without tearing the whole thing down. Just like with our Constitution. Amendments and new laws can always change the workings of government. That doesn't mean government no longer exists.

Systems are never perfect and tinkering with different elements has the potential to make things better for everybody. When tinkering some good questions to ask are, who created the system? Who is it working for? Who is it not working for? Or for the more business minded, What are the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats?

The real issue is that this change will not benefit EVERYBODY. It will benefit the majority of the labor but has potential to cut profits for the organization as a whole and therefore executives may actually make less money. A "non-profit" organization the brings in over $1 billion in revenue should have constant conversations on the allocation of those funds and how best to use those funds to serve the public. Decisions CANNOT be made with respect to profit or the organization no longer fits the definition of "non-profit."

Just going to end with the point the the existence of choice does not equate to freedom. It is also odd to me how vehemently you defend the rights of a system/corporation over the well being of people.

drgnslayr said:

UPDATE:

https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/california-governor-signs-law-allowing-college-athletes-to-be-paid-for-name-image-and-likeness-as-ncaa-protests/ ↗

https://www.si.com/college-football/2019/09/30/florida-state-representative-proposed-legislation-pay-student-athletes ↗

Colorado and Washington are soon to follow. Anyone know where Texas sits on this issue? I'm of the opinion if the NCAA still isn't bluffing after a few more states join in, adding Texas will be the final blow. I already see this as the end of the NCAA as we know it. They will have to adjust to a new system. Maybe we just need to stall out as long as we can and then we are the proverbial kid in Colorado who is caught with a joint the day pot was legalized.

The times are a changin'. I figure the NCAA is worth about one more silly threat before the bend over and say "uncle!"

The key, as many have stated in here, is for the NCAA to create laws they can actually enforce. Since the system is so large, they can't enforce it without help from everyone; institutions, players, onlookers, shoecos... everyone.

What you don't hear people talking about is the IRS. Suddenly, they are going to be very very interested in "student-athletes."

This is the time for an entrepreneur to step up and start a new organization to compete against the NCAA. No one seems to like the NCAA so this entire country (outside the NCAA) would listen to an alternative. An alternative would attempt to create a fail-safe system, connected to the IRS and DOJ for a presence of transparency and control. Fairness.

BTW: for those not convinced the NCAA is about to take this up the backside.... just imagine for a second this case ending up in federal court, State of Cal vs NCAA. California holds all the cards. All the cards. The NCAA can only sit back on controls from a private organization. Once an organization develops to the level the NCAA has, federal court has long ago stripped organizations of most of their control. Almost every single American is directly impacted by the NCAA.

Meanwhile... expect to see "action groups" organized and buying TV ads in support of the civil liberties of athletes. Big black eye on the NCAA. Again... they lose!

The Texas legislature doesn't come back until 2021 so there won't be any movement there unless Gov. Abbott calls a special session.

benshawks08 said:

@HighEliteMajor

It's weird because I do basically agree with you that the colleges themselves add value to these talented kids. I also agree that we love college basketball and would like it to continue. It just seems to me that there is some room for change without tearing the whole thing down. Just like with our Constitution. Amendments and new laws can always change the workings of government. That doesn't mean government no longer exists.

Systems are never perfect and tinkering with different elements has the potential to make things better for everybody. When tinkering some good questions to ask are, who created the system? Who is it working for? Who is it not working for? Or for the more business minded, What are the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats?

The real issue is that this change will not benefit EVERYBODY. It will benefit the majority of the labor but has potential to cut profits for the organization as a whole and therefore executives may actually make less money. A "non-profit" organization the brings in over $1 billion in revenue should have constant conversations on the allocation of those funds and how best to use those funds to serve the public. Decisions CANNOT be made with respect to profit or the organization no longer fits the definition of "non-profit."

Just going to end with the point the the existence of choice does not equate to freedom. It is also odd to me how vehemently you defend the rights of a system/corporation over the well being of people.

I love the direction you are going here. Attacking this from the non-profit angle is a solid approach, in my opinion. And "the existence of choice does not equate to freedom" statement is clearly correct -- would you like a heart attack or cancer? Agreed.

But here, of course, it's a much different realm. Here there is absolute freedom. Pure and unabashed. If the relative benefit of the college scholarship is higher for some, which it certainly is, well, that demonstrates its incredible value.

Regarding my defense of system/corporations, I defend liberty in my position. I would love to see the players unite for the change they may want, to boycott/refuse to play, to exercise their power. The fact is, though, the players are happy. They know they have a good deal -- Andrew Wiggins? Maybe the deal isn't great for him. The rest of our 2013-14 roster, it was terrific. It's outside forces that are the complainers.

I also love competition. Would love to see a league challenge and take players away from the NCAA if it were sustainable. It's really not, which leads me in part to my view on this.

Corporations should be able to make their own internal rules. Period. There are some limited exceptions under the law that corporations must adhere to. And there are boundaries on their power -- monopolies, anti-trust. All generally good with me for this discussion.

That fact is the NCAA does a huge and immense amount of good for the incredibly high majority of athletes, and the money it generates helps the general student population as well.

@HighEliteMajor
I would just push the thinking a little farther and ask, is the money the NCAA generates helping the student athletes and general population as much as it COULD. As a non-profit, I personally feel that should be its goal. To me, too large a piece of that pie is being distributed amongst a small group of people who also happen to be the same people who make the rules.

Not a perfect analogy but it'd be like if I had my students do a fund raiser and at the end said, hmm.... as the person who was responsible for the ordering, tracking and the rest of the administrative duties of this fund raiser, I think I should keep 15%. If I'm the one making the rule not much the kids can do about it and they still are benefiting with 85% of the profits. In my case as a public school teacher of course this would be illegal (? maybe not illegal but I'd definitely get fired), but if I worked at a private school with less regulation...? Just because it is legal/within the rules doesn't mean it's right. (feel free to pick apart this analogy because as I said it is NOT perfect!!!)

@benshawks08 To that issue, I think the following link helps explain where the NCAA money goes.

http://www.ncaa.org/about/where-does-money-go ↗