RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

The NCAA Must Reform Itself or Die

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 5101
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/02/18 11:53 am    ::: The NCAA Must Reform Itself or Die Reply Reply with quote

Quote:
The transparent sham of amateurism has allowed schools to profit from the unpaid labor of young athletes to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. That’s wrong, and it can’t last forever.


Quote:
Schools, coaches, and administrators make millions of dollars from college sports; players are rational economic actors whose skills are their most valuable asset and who will always try to capture their value; the NCAA will never be able to stamp out such activity nor punish it fairly after-the-fact.


Quote:
Unless and until the NCAA makes these changes, though, we should call it what it is: a corrupt cartel with a lack of institutional control and a deadening penchant for hollow sanctimony.


https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/ncaa-college-athletics-corrupt-student-athlete-model-must-reform/
PlayBally'all



Joined: 17 Oct 2013
Posts: 224



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/08/18 11:17 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The NCAA does need reform. That being said, cutting pay checks to college athletes isn't an option. If basketball players want a developmental league, then go to Europe and play in one. If the NBA wants to further develop a developmental league, they should spend the money and develop one.

The vast majority of athletic departments struggle to break even. A large percentage lose money annually.

Consider this..... A player can skip college and play in a developmental league and get paid $25,000 a year (that is being generous). If that same player attends college on a full ride, he or she receives benefits worth far more than that salary, plus a cost of attendance stipend.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 9319



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/08/18 11:45 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Why is it not an option? Paychecks are cut for coaches, in the millions of dollars. Why not take some of that and give it to the players, who after all are the ones who do the work and attract the fans?

And as pointed out in another thread, if college athletics are really such a financial drain, then why don't universities drop these programs? It's not because of altruism -- it's because overall, they generate income. And also, if athletics don't generate income, why do football coaches get such large salaries? Because university regents like winning teams?



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
CBiebel



Joined: 23 Dec 2004
Posts: 662
Location: PA


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/10/18 3:40 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
Why is it not an option? Paychecks are cut for coaches, in the millions of dollars. Why not take some of that and give it to the players, who after all are the ones who do the work and attract the fans?

And as pointed out in another thread, if college athletics are really such a financial drain, then why don't universities drop these programs? It's not because of altruism -- it's because overall, they generate income. And also, if athletics don't generate income, why do football coaches get such large salaries? Because university regents like winning teams?


Are all the football coaches getting such large salaries? Bowling Green? Western Michigan? UNLV? Central Florida?


PUmatty



Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 14442
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/10/18 9:23 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

CBiebel wrote:
ClayK wrote:
Why is it not an option? Paychecks are cut for coaches, in the millions of dollars. Why not take some of that and give it to the players, who after all are the ones who do the work and attract the fans?

And as pointed out in another thread, if college athletics are really such a financial drain, then why don't universities drop these programs? It's not because of altruism -- it's because overall, they generate income. And also, if athletics don't generate income, why do football coaches get such large salaries? Because university regents like winning teams?


Are all the football coaches getting such large salaries? Bowling Green? Western Michigan? UNLV? Central Florida?


Central Florida guarantees Josh Heupel almost $2 million a year.

Total compensation is harder to find for the others, but they all look to be over a million a year. All but Western Michigan have base salaries very similar to Heupel.

This is not to say I think players should be paid or the Clay's idea that colleges are getting financial benefit is correct, but for Div 1A those salaries are pretty universal.


calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 3126
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/10/18 9:36 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The real issue with paying college athletes is how. We have already gone past the point of deciding to pay athletes by redefining the total cost of attending school and other determinations. The real question becomes whether we move to a system where individual players get paid differently. It seems clear that even within Division 1 the power conferences generate significantly greater revenue and have greater resources. Should football players or basketball players be paid differently than others based on the revenues they bring in? There are obstacles for sure, but this becomes a critical issue. And if revenue sports can have different compensation, can that compensation vary within a team.

As long as athletes are lumped together as a whole the argument can be made that the current system works well for the majority of athletes. But the same could be said for baseball players if all professionals, regardless of league, were paid $100,000. It's just that every major leaguer would be taking a massive pay cut, some more than 99%.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 9319



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/11/18 11:49 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

calbearman76 wrote:
The real issue with paying college athletes is how. We have already gone past the point of deciding to pay athletes by redefining the total cost of attending school and other determinations. The real question becomes whether we move to a system where individual players get paid differently. It seems clear that even within Division 1 the power conferences generate significantly greater revenue and have greater resources. Should football players or basketball players be paid differently than others based on the revenues they bring in? There are obstacles for sure, but this becomes a critical issue. And if revenue sports can have different compensation, can that compensation vary within a team.

As long as athletes are lumped together as a whole the argument can be made that the current system works well for the majority of athletes. But the same could be said for baseball players if all professionals, regardless of league, were paid $100,000. It's just that every major leaguer would be taking a massive pay cut, some more than 99%.


If all coaches get paid the same amount, then all players should get paid the same amount ...

If, on the other hand, the market decides what coaches are worth, then let the market decide what players are worth.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
insidewinder



Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 197



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/11/18 8:28 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
calbearman76 wrote:
The real issue with paying college athletes is how. We have already gone past the point of deciding to pay athletes by redefining the total cost of attending school and other determinations. The real question becomes whether we move to a system where individual players get paid differently. It seems clear that even within Division 1 the power conferences generate significantly greater revenue and have greater resources. Should football players or basketball players be paid differently than others based on the revenues they bring in? There are obstacles for sure, but this becomes a critical issue. And if revenue sports can have different compensation, can that compensation vary within a team.

As long as athletes are lumped together as a whole the argument can be made that the current system works well for the majority of athletes. But the same could be said for baseball players if all professionals, regardless of league, were paid $100,000. It's just that every major leaguer would be taking a massive pay cut, some more than 99%.


If all coaches get paid the same amount, then all players should get paid the same amount ...

If, on the other hand, the market decides what coaches are worth, then let the market decide what players are worth.


What is the market for a women's basketball player at age 18? There is barely a market for top level women pros when you consider the salary in comparison with men's leagues. I don't know the exact salary structure of the WNBA, for instance, but I bet a decent number of the younger players pull a salary that is not much more, maybe even less, than the yearly cost of the athletic scholarships they had in college. I know one thing, the market for 99% of kids coming out of high school is a lot less than the free education they get. At many places it costs tens of thousands of dollars a year, which over four or five years is a couple hundred thousand maybe, some places more. So they should get that and get paid on top of it, and be able to transfer at will, so coaches can never plan for a stable roster? Nice deal! Certainly not what I would say matches their market value, though.

So, if you ask schools to pay WCBB players how much should they get? WCBB makes no money except at what, 5 schools or something? So they should be paid market rate of...zero? The very, very top kids might command something at a few schools who can afford it and are willing, but do you seriously think most schools are going to shell out more than the cost of an education for even top level recruits coming out of high school?

Kids get to play the sport they love and get a free education, or close to it. They (in theory) get good coaching and can develop their game. Even if they transfer and have to sit out a season, they still get an extra year of education, often ending up with a Masters. The poor kids, how horrible. After college they can use that education to build a career or maybe if they are good enough they can play in the pros at various countries around the world, but for not a lot of money for the most part. The very few true stars make some real bucks compared to the vast majority but they are the few top level players, not even the majority of pros.

You want to kill WCBB, ask colleges to shell out money for the athletes on top of the free education they already get. Either they all get paid something, which seems unworkable given the economics of WCBB, or the very few top players get a lot while the rest get nothing (great for team chemistry!) or a few rich schools buy all the talent, thus wrecking the competitive balance of the sport, making it even more top heavy than now. I just don't see how kids who get to play college sports and get a free education are getting a bum deal. Not in WCBB, anyway.

As for the argument that playing a college sport is more like a job, and not worth what the players put into it in terms of time, effort, etc., well then don't play. If it is that onerous, vote with your feet and stop. I'm not just being facetious. If the amount of time and effort is not worth the free education and rest of it, don't do it. Drop the scholarship, be a regular student, free of sports. Or go to a lower division.


calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 3126
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/11/18 9:25 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The answer for women's basketball players is almost always going to be zero. What they are getting now is actually a form of largesse conferred upon them because of the money siphoned off from men's basketball and football. And most donors would trade their entire women's program for one extra football win a year if they could.


myrtle



Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 23316



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/11/18 11:43 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

well said, insidewinder. I would also add that playing in college gives athletes the opportunity to showcase their talent so the pros have a better idea of what they will get - this is hard to put a value on. To me, if you're going to pay athletes on top of their scholarships it's better to go to a 'direct to pros' route out of high school. If a kid wants to make money, let him/her go that way. If they can make it as a pro at 18, great. If they can't make it, then they can go back and get an education...but now it won't be paid for and they can't play their sport in college. Seems like that's just setting a lot of kids up for failure. But perhaps advocates will feel better for giving them this choice?



_________________
“Try to be a rainbow in someone's cloud.”
― Maya Angelou
SO ...I lost a bet with Rock about how many wins Chicago would get this year. My punishment - T. Young as my avatar. Well it could be worse!
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 9319



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/12/18 10:44 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

OK, let's make the same argument for badminton, or tennis, or cross country ...

Women's basketball should be no more privileged (and no less) than any other sport. I would say the vast majority of college athletes participate not for their benefits, but because they love to play and compete.

As you point out, if they don't love to play and compete, they can just play intramurals -- or video games.

Right now, women's basketball gets 15 scholarships, and by the rules, they have to be full scholarships. Why shouldn't volleyball (or golf or field hockey) get the same number of full rides? None of the sports make any money, and as pointed out, all of the athletes benefit to some degree.

If college sports weren't a billion-dollar business built on the backs (and future health) of essentially indentured labor, it would be a different story. But the exploitation of men's basketball and football players -- while coaches and administrators pull down multi-million dollar salaries -- is simply inexcusable.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
insidewinder



Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 197



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/12/18 11:38 am    ::: Simple answer Reply Reply with quote

Not all sports are the same as far as number of scholarships, etc. They have varying requirements for the number of athletes on the field, on the team, etc. Football and men's basketball are different due to the amount of money the pros make and the college team revenues for those sports. College sports as a whole is not a multi-billion dollar industry, only a subset of those sports are. How much money is in badminton and cross country? Applying solutions to the problems of big time football and men's basketball programs to all sports doesn't make sense. Why should proposed solutions to those problems extend to those sports? Apples and oranges.

If the vast majority of college athletes participate because they love to play and compete, how are they indentured labor? Many of them get to do what they love and get a free education on top of that. Seems like a dream come true for most, not a burden.


calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 3126
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/12/18 1:17 pm    ::: Re: Simple answer Reply Reply with quote

insidewinder wrote:
Not all sports are the same as far as number of scholarships, etc. They have varying requirements for the number of athletes on the field, on the team, etc. Football and men's basketball are different due to the amount of money the pros make and the college team revenues for those sports. College sports as a whole is not a multi-billion dollar industry, only a subset of those sports are. How much money is in badminton and cross country? Applying solutions to the problems of big time football and men's basketball programs to all sports doesn't make sense. Why should proposed solutions to those problems extend to those sports? Apples and oranges.

If the vast majority of college athletes participate because they love to play and compete, how are they indentured labor? Many of them get to do what they love and get a free education on top of that. Seems like a dream come true for most, not a burden.


I don't believe anyone said that. Indeed the current system takes the money from those two sports and does many good things with it (and some bad things), including supporting many of the other sports. Men's college basketball has become a sport dominated by the one and done athlete who has nothing to do with the "student-athlete." Football is a violent sport where injuries happen all too frequently. Running backs in particular seem to have a limit of roughly 150 games, and using 1/3 of those not getting paid while their schools and coaches make millions is exploitive.

The problem is clear but the solution is not. Sports have always been a part of the college experience, but sports are not the most important part. When some of the top coaches and programs get mixed up with an FBI probe on paying athletes something is wrong and it reflects poorly on the institutions.


insidewinder



Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 197



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/12/18 3:45 pm    ::: Re: Simple answer Reply Reply with quote

calbearman76 wrote:
insidewinder wrote:
Not all sports are the same as far as number of scholarships, etc. They have varying requirements for the number of athletes on the field, on the team, etc. Football and men's basketball are different due to the amount of money the pros make and the college team revenues for those sports. College sports as a whole is not a multi-billion dollar industry, only a subset of those sports are. How much money is in badminton and cross country? Applying solutions to the problems of big time football and men's basketball programs to all sports doesn't make sense. Why should proposed solutions to those problems extend to those sports? Apples and oranges.

If the vast majority of college athletes participate because they love to play and compete, how are they indentured labor? Many of them get to do what they love and get a free education on top of that. Seems like a dream come true for most, not a burden.


I don't believe anyone said that. Indeed the current system takes the money from those two sports and does many good things with it (and some bad things), including supporting many of the other sports. Men's college basketball has become a sport dominated by the one and done athlete who has nothing to do with the "student-athlete." Football is a violent sport where injuries happen all too frequently. Running backs in particular seem to have a limit of roughly 150 games, and using 1/3 of those not getting paid while their schools and coaches make millions is exploitive.

The problem is clear but the solution is not. Sports have always been a part of the college experience, but sports are not the most important part. When some of the top coaches and programs get mixed up with an FBI probe on paying athletes something is wrong and it reflects poorly on the institutions.


The post I was responding to said this, "OK, let's make the same argument for badminton, or tennis, or cross country ... Women's basketball should be no more privileged (and no less) than any other sport." He mixed in WCBB with the rest of the college sports. Thus my answer.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 9319



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/13/18 10:20 am    ::: Re: Simple answer Reply Reply with quote

insidewinder wrote:
Not all sports are the same as far as number of scholarships, etc. They have varying requirements for the number of athletes on the field, on the team, etc. Football and men's basketball are different due to the amount of money the pros make and the college team revenues for those sports. College sports as a whole is not a multi-billion dollar industry, only a subset of those sports are. How much money is in badminton and cross country? Applying solutions to the problems of big time football and men's basketball programs to all sports doesn't make sense. Why should proposed solutions to those problems extend to those sports? Apples and oranges.

If the vast majority of college athletes participate because they love to play and compete, how are they indentured labor? Many of them get to do what they love and get a free education on top of that. Seems like a dream come true for most, not a burden.


Excellent point. One issue that's come up is that paying college athletes doesn't make sense because there are so many of them -- so my thought is to let the market decide how much each athlete is worth. Obviously, men's basketball and football will separate themselves pretty quickly, but you could still have basically the same set of rules, along this line:

1) High school athletes can be represented by agents
2) High school athletes can sign contracts with universities that vary in compensation, length and transfer issues
3) College players are not allowed to transfer and be eligible during the same season

The likely outcome would be college QBs and left tackles getting scholarships and money, and top women's basketball players, for example, getting scholarships (full or partial). Many might not get any compensation at all, as is the case with many college athletes today.

Title IX would still come into play in terms of opportunities to participate, but since coaches can receive wildly varying salaries for men's and women's sports, it shouldn't be an issue if students are in the same boat.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
summertime blues



Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 4886
Location: Shenandoah Valley


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/13/18 11:48 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Any of this is not likely to happen, so it's all moot anyway.



_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 9319



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/13/18 12:16 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

summertime blues wrote:
Any of this is not likely to happen, so it's all moot anyway.


You may well be right, but I do think something is going to happen. Of course, inertia and vested interests may dictate that nothing changes, but it seems like the tide is rising ...



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
insidewinder



Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 197



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/13/18 1:00 pm    ::: Re: Simple answer Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
insidewinder wrote:
Not all sports are the same as far as number of scholarships, etc. They have varying requirements for the number of athletes on the field, on the team, etc. Football and men's basketball are different due to the amount of money the pros make and the college team revenues for those sports. College sports as a whole is not a multi-billion dollar industry, only a subset of those sports are. How much money is in badminton and cross country? Applying solutions to the problems of big time football and men's basketball programs to all sports doesn't make sense. Why should proposed solutions to those problems extend to those sports? Apples and oranges.

If the vast majority of college athletes participate because they love to play and compete, how are they indentured labor? Many of them get to do what they love and get a free education on top of that. Seems like a dream come true for most, not a burden.


Excellent point. One issue that's come up is that paying college athletes doesn't make sense because there are so many of them -- so my thought is to let the market decide how much each athlete is worth. Obviously, men's basketball and football will separate themselves pretty quickly, but you could still have basically the same set of rules, along this line:

1) High school athletes can be represented by agents
2) High school athletes can sign contracts with universities that vary in compensation, length and transfer issues
3) College players are not allowed to transfer and be eligible during the same season

The likely outcome would be college QBs and left tackles getting scholarships and money, and top women's basketball players, for example, getting scholarships (full or partial). Many might not get any compensation at all, as is the case with many college athletes today.

Title IX would still come into play in terms of opportunities to participate, but since coaches can receive wildly varying salaries for men's and women's sports, it shouldn't be an issue if students are in the same boat.


I'm still confused about when the market would be supposed to decided in this scenario. When a kid is in high school and decides on the college I assume. But at that age, who knows with any certainty what "each athlete is worth?" The vast majority will get nothing, as you say, and the few who would get something will get paid well when they hit the pros anyway. So what is the point? Not choice because the athletes have that already. What if this idea hurts those who are not stars? The stars suck up all the money, less left for others? Pay the stars on top of their scholarships but to make ends meet cut scholarship numbers or the amount given to the non-stars?

Agents cost money or might do unethical things to get paid if they are operating on a contingency basis. What about families who may not know the ins and outs, might spend a lot of money on agents with no real shot at getting big bucks or maybe even get scammed? Doesn't that already happen with club sports when parents spend a lot in hopes of a scholarship for a kid who is not close to the ability level required to get one? Who protects families not versed in the world of agents in this sort of market?

Your plan creates teams where maybe a few players have much more favorable "contracts" than the rest. Would that not lead to issues for programs, resentment among players, all that stuff? What if the hot shot with the great contract gets beaten out by a lowly, low market value, lousy contract player? What if there is limited time in the super duper jump shot fixing device the coach just invented? Kid with less need but a better contract gets it over the lowly player who may need it more? Kid with better contract gets more one on one time with the coach?

Why is sitting out a transfer season so terrible for the vast majority? Downside is they don't get to play right away. Upsides are extra year of free education, time to get adjusted to the new program and work on their skills, and maybe the fact that they would have to sit out helps keep young players from making impulsive transfer decisions.


calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 3126
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/13/18 5:11 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

There already have been changes and there will continue to be some. Colleges have an entrenched power base and they will continue to wield it over students that have very little power. But as more money pours in the potential for corruption gets greater. The NCAA does not have a good record in court, as shown by the Northwestern football players union decision, the Ed O'Bannon personal identity decision and others. Their greatest strength is that the court system moves slowly and players are only eligible for a short time, but the bigger the stakes the greater the opportunity to fight.

The current system is certainly better than a wide open system for most, perhaps nearly all, but it doesn't mean that the system can't be improved. If the NCAA decides to directly engage players as a bargaining group (a major concession) they may be able to stave off other attacks from a legal standpoint. On the other hand, such an acknowledgement could be perceived as making athletes in some ways employees (a very dangerous precedent.) Right now the system is monopolistic and denies people certain basic rights without due process according to many people, so even if it works well for most it is potentially at risk for those that it harms.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 9319



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/14/18 11:54 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

OK, let's have coaches and administrators, who earn their money thanks to the labor and talent of the athletes, operate under the same system.

All coaches get the same salary, regardless of sport. All coaches and athletic directors must sit out a year, without pay, before they can work at another school.

No coach or administrator may hire an agent to help negotiate their contract.

Obviously, that will never happen because these are adult professionals.

Oh, that's right, most college athletes are over the age of 18, and thus adults, and they are compensated for their efforts with scholarships.

To take some points:

1) Families don't know the system. They don't know it now and can't ask for advice. Did you know that not signing an NLI gives a player much more freedom?

2) Paying agents. Agents are generally paid on a percentage of the contract, and though they may charge by the hour in these cases, it's still the family making a decision and getting informed advice. As you point out, it's no different than the club system, but an agent would be able to tell a family, for example, that an elite player doesn't need to play for any club teams and she will still have many options.

3) Jealousy over contracts. It's a business, as college athletes learn very quickly. Their coach's salary is dependent on their performance, and they are treated like employees -- as for the coach, that's precisely what they are. If his employees don't perform, he gets fired.

Bottom line: The system as presently designed hands all power to the colleges and the NCAA, and makes it illegal for families to get informed advice. No college coach or NCAA employee would accept, or even consider accepting, the restraints placed on adults who play collegiate sports (which is of course a multi-billion dollar industry).



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
PUmatty



Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 14442
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/14/18 1:04 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
OK, let's have coaches and administrators, who earn their money thanks to the labor and talent of the athletes, operate under the same system.

All coaches get the same salary, regardless of sport. All coaches and athletic directors must sit out a year, without pay, before they can work at another school.

No coach or administrator may hire an agent to help negotiate their contract.

Obviously, that will never happen because these are adult professionals.

Oh, that's right, most college athletes are over the age of 18, and thus adults, and they are compensated for their efforts with scholarships.

To take some points:

1) Families don't know the system. They don't know it now and can't ask for advice. Did you know that not signing an NLI gives a player much more freedom?

2) Paying agents. Agents are generally paid on a percentage of the contract, and though they may charge by the hour in these cases, it's still the family making a decision and getting informed advice. As you point out, it's no different than the club system, but an agent would be able to tell a family, for example, that an elite player doesn't need to play for any club teams and she will still have many options.

3) Jealousy over contracts. It's a business, as college athletes learn very quickly. Their coach's salary is dependent on their performance, and they are treated like employees -- as for the coach, that's precisely what they are. If his employees don't perform, he gets fired.

Bottom line: The system as presently designed hands all power to the colleges and the NCAA, and makes it illegal for families to get informed advice. No college coach or NCAA employee would accept, or even consider accepting, the restraints placed on adults who play collegiate sports (which is of course a multi-billion dollar industry).


If you instilled those rules for coaches, many would probably decide to not coach in the NCAA. They would do something different if they didn't like those rules.

Guess what? Athletes have that same choice!


insidewinder



Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 197



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/14/18 7:15 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
OK, let's have coaches and administrators, who earn their money thanks to the labor and talent of the athletes, operate under the same system.

All coaches get the same salary, regardless of sport. All coaches and athletic directors must sit out a year, without pay, before they can work at another school.

No coach or administrator may hire an agent to help negotiate their contract.

Obviously, that will never happen because these are adult professionals.

Oh, that's right, most college athletes are over the age of 18, and thus adults, and they are compensated for their efforts with scholarships.

To take some points:

1) Families don't know the system. They don't know it now and can't ask for advice. Did you know that not signing an NLI gives a player much more freedom?

2) Paying agents. Agents are generally paid on a percentage of the contract, and though they may charge by the hour in these cases, it's still the family making a decision and getting informed advice. As you point out, it's no different than the club system, but an agent would be able to tell a family, for example, that an elite player doesn't need to play for any club teams and she will still have many options.

3) Jealousy over contracts. It's a business, as college athletes learn very quickly. Their coach's salary is dependent on their performance, and they are treated like employees -- as for the coach, that's precisely what they are. If his employees don't perform, he gets fired.

Bottom line: The system as presently designed hands all power to the colleges and the NCAA, and makes it illegal for families to get informed advice. No college coach or NCAA employee would accept, or even consider accepting, the restraints placed on adults who play collegiate sports (which is of course a multi-billion dollar industry).


How is it illegal for families to get informed advice? Agents are not the only source of informed advice. We have already established or at least nobody disagreed that women's basketball recruits coming out of high school are not going to command big bucks from schools. So an agent who deals with that sort of stuff is not the right answer for them. They may be for a kid who is going to the NBA in a year, but that is not the case for WCBB players. If families need better info, there are plenty of ways to give it to them besides having them employ agents. The NCAA could have classes, online or live, for families, all kinds of stuff, or other groups could. What info do families need that they do not have about choosing a college for a women's basketball player that they need an agent to tell them?

So from your number 3 you think it would be ok if schools could fire underperforming 18-year old players? Sorry kid, it is a business and we can find someone better than you and cheaper too (they'll take a lower salary!), so sorry that you wanted to spend four years on our lovely campus completing a degree, go find a new school. Is that really how you think it should go? Or schools can't fire players? But that is not how business works. If you want to be treated as an employee you can be fired or laid off, all kinds of things. So in your model players are free to transfer at any time and schools can fire kids at any time? Sort of the wild west where everyone goes hither and yon, looking for greener pastures? If that ever happened I think I would not follow college sports anymore and probably many schools would get out of "business" entirely, go to intramurals or whatever. Now maybe that is how things should be, but I don't think that is the intended result when people say athletes should be paid like employees.

The thing you are not addressing is college athletics as a whole is NOT a multi-billion dollar industry, just a small subset of college sports are like that. I agree there are problems with how the system is run, mostly with football and men's basketball. Your solution if I read you correctly is to open up the whole system to pay athletes as employees. But that makes no sense for women's basketball, or any women's sports, because they are already getting paid to play through expensive scholarships, and what they get is almost certainly a better value than what they would get if schools gave them money instead. You mean they should get both? In non-revenue sports? The free education worth tens of thousands a year is not enough, not what they deserve? Why? Why do college athletes deserve more than the free education? No other college students get paid, do they? Not in the way you propose. They may get jobs in their spare time, but they don't get paid to do school stuff like spend a lot of extra time in a research lab or doing an internship. What makes college athletes in non-revenue sports special that way above and beyond a scholarship? Do they work hard for that scholarship? Yes, they do! Do they spend a lot of time on their sport! Sure do! Should that be cut? Maybe so. But to get paid on top of it? Explain why that should happen?

WCBB players already have freedom to choose a school that appeals to them, to choose the level of commitment they wish to give to their sport by picking the appropriate division. How are those choices lesser than someone choosing which job to take at what salary? What restraints are on them aside from transfer rules, which given the fact that athletes are given one of a very limited number of valuable scholarships, are really not that steep a price to pay for a free education while playing the sport they love?

What power are college students or college student/athletes supposed to have that they don't have? Set their hours? Yes, great, so how does that work on a team if not every player wants to practice at the same time? Set their work conditions? So if the coach does drills they don't like, they do what? College sports should not be drudge work and misery. If that is happening, something is very wrong. Making college athletes into employees for non-revenue sports solves that how? If my job sucks, I can quit. That is my power as an employee. I can follow procedures if there are job issues like harassment that I wish to complain about. But I don't get to make the rules at my job. What exactly is it student athletes gain by being employees? Unless they are football or men's basketball stars they are not going to get rich that way. You want to make college athletics a business, which seems to me would make things a whole lot worse for players.

If football and men's basketball in college are being used mostly as pro audition leagues by too many players, the NFL and the NBA should have large development leagues for those who are not in it for the education. The WNBA could do that too, but there is no money for that and probably very few players who would want to skip college entirely for that. The leagues don't want to spend the money on that. Or just let players who think they are good enough to be drafted out of high school enter the draft, but allow them to change their mind if they don't get picked or even after they start playing as a pro. Give them a chance to void their pro contract and instead start college in some time period after they sign a pro contract. Maybe delay getting their first check for a few months or just get a minimal amount, so they could still choose to go to college instead. I don't know, stuff like that makes a lot more sense to me than making college athletes pros.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 9319



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/15/18 9:34 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Why should players be prevented from talking to an agent? Why should players be subject to transfer rules? And why, if a school is willing, should a player be prevented from receiving compensation for her skills?

Obviously, not many schools will pay women's basketball players, but if Kim Mulkey makes a million dollars a year from Baylor, clearly Baylor is willing to invest in the sport. And if Baylor wants to pay players, why not?

And women's basketball is a privileged sport, in that all 15 scholarships must be full scholarships. Cross country runners don't get full rides, but they work just as hard, etc., etc.

To me, really, the solution is some kind of collective bargaining agreement between the NCAA and an organization representing present and potential college athletes that includes, at the least, arbitration and justification for transfer rules, the national letter of intent, and so on.

And as long as coaches are making hundreds of thousands of dollars in women's basketball, and the players who generate that income get none, the blatant rigging of the system in favor of coaches, administrators, colleges and the NCAA could not be more clear.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
insidewinder



Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 197



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/15/18 11:06 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
Why should players be prevented from talking to an agent? Why should players be subject to transfer rules? And why, if a school is willing, should a player be prevented from receiving compensation for her skills?

Obviously, not many schools will pay women's basketball players, but if Kim Mulkey makes a million dollars a year from Baylor, clearly Baylor is willing to invest in the sport. And if Baylor wants to pay players, why not?

And women's basketball is a privileged sport, in that all 15 scholarships must be full scholarships. Cross country runners don't get full rides, but they work just as hard, etc., etc.

To me, really, the solution is some kind of collective bargaining agreement between the NCAA and an organization representing present and potential college athletes that includes, at the least, arbitration and justification for transfer rules, the national letter of intent, and so on.

And as long as coaches are making hundreds of thousands of dollars in women's basketball, and the players who generate that income get none, the blatant rigging of the system in favor of coaches, administrators, colleges and the NCAA could not be more clear.


The talking with an agent issue is for college kids wanting to go pro, and I don't see why they should not be able to talk to an agent. Anyone should be able to talk to anyone they wish. Now, high school age women's players, what do they need an agent for? You did not answer that, and that was what you initially proposed. They should be able to, but why would they need to at that point?

I just wasted a billion words describing many ways paying players or treating them as employees would be a bad idea. Since you turned the question back to me even after that, I assume you have no answers to any of the issues I raised. I am not going to repeat myself. "Why not" is not a good reason, and I answered why not already. So in your example if Baylor wants to offer recruits $100k a year to play (because they are crazy) and all the top kids go there such that they win all the games forever, that would be a good result in your world?

You said yet again that players generate income but they do not. Most programs play in front of small crowds and even leaving aside what schools pay the coaches, do not make money. Can we at least agree on that? Here is another key point - for WCBB, fans come to see their team for the team, not generally because one specific player is on that team. Which specific players are on the team matters a lot less than how the team as a whole does. Fans follow players because they are on the team they root for, not vice versa for the most part. Not only do programs not bring in a lot of revenue, the revenue that they do bring in for the most part does not come from the fact that Judy Jumpshot plays on the team rather than on another team. So what exactly is being bought if you pay players?

Why are there transfer rules, LOIs, etc? Simple - because schools are giving away a valuable resource that is in limited supply (scholarships) with negative consequences to programs if players leave. Do you think a free education should come with no strings attached? You say the players "get none" of the income (which there is little to none of anyway), but they do - they get valuable scholarships, a free education, coaching to improve, the thrill of playing the sport at a high level, and often interesting travel that goes with that.

I agree coaches are overpaid but the solution to me seems to be to reduce what they are paid, for football, etc. as well. Maybe something like a salary cap for coaches, you can spend so much for your football coaches divided however you like but the total must be less than some cap. Taking money out of the system makes more sense to me than adding more to it.


Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin