|
Post by ColumbiaHeightsHoya on Apr 11, 2016 13:22:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by HometownHoya on Apr 11, 2016 14:57:01 GMT -5
Wiseys could sponsor a student favorite walk-on. Hell, with a crowd fund the students/a club could sponsor a classmate!
|
|
3xhoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,163
|
Post by 3xhoya on Apr 11, 2016 21:34:25 GMT -5
This seems like a terrible idea which will lead to further abuse. Boosters will basically be allowed to buy recruits.
|
|
Hoyas4Ever
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
A Wise Man Once Told Me Don't Argue With Fools....
Posts: 5,448
|
Post by Hoyas4Ever on Apr 11, 2016 23:39:41 GMT -5
This seems like a terrible idea which will lead to further abuse. Boosters will basically be allowed to buy recruits. Ohh you mean the Kentucky Recruiting Blueprint!
|
|
3xhoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,163
|
Post by 3xhoya on Apr 12, 2016 6:22:52 GMT -5
This seems like a terrible idea which will lead to further abuse. Boosters will basically be allowed to buy recruits. Ohh you mean the Kentucky Recruiting Blueprint! This is exactly what I mean except it will all be done out in the open. Do we really want to see bidding wars for high school athletes? It's one thing if they can sign autographs for money, sponsorships just seems like asking for trouble.
|
|
hoyainla
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Suspended
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by hoyainla on Apr 12, 2016 9:43:18 GMT -5
Ohh you mean the Kentucky Recruiting Blueprint! This is exactly what I mean except it will all be done out in the open. Do we really want to see bidding wars for high school athletes? It's one thing if they can sign autographs for money, sponsorships just seems like asking for trouble. I have said for years I think this is how it should be done. All out in the open above the board and taxed. It's getting done anyways so why not let everyone see it and eliminate the NCAA BS. I also believe players should get paid. If you don't then you probably disagree with all of it.
|
|
calhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,351
|
Post by calhoya on Apr 12, 2016 9:58:53 GMT -5
I think that even having the conversation is a positive and indicates some awareness by the NCAA that the system must be adjusted. Perhaps the endorsements can be split between school and athlete as a means of assuring that the athlete who benefits is also in some manner repaying the school at least a portion of the cost of the scholarship.
|
|
SDHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,306
|
Post by SDHoya on Apr 12, 2016 10:14:59 GMT -5
If you are in favor of professionalizing college ball, and you think that the current system is an un-fixable hypocrisy, then this is a great first step.
If you think that college ball should still aspire to be the best amateur athletics has to offer, this is a disaster.
My personal belief is that once we start going down this road, it will be almost impossible to stop; and I'm not sure I will still be interested in the Washington Wizards minor league affiliate Georgetown* Hoyas. Hypocrisy of the current system aside.
*Not directly affiliated with Georgetown University. Program is a separately incorporated entity which uses GU colors and trademarks by license.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Apr 12, 2016 14:04:48 GMT -5
I may be mistaken, but I believe the Commissioner is referencing the recent decision in the O'Bannon antitrust case, in which a class of plaintiffs alleged that the NCAA violated antitrust law by using their names and likenesses without compensating them. The district court held that this was a violation but the remedy was forcing the NCAA to pay student-athletes up to the true cost of attendance (rather than the scholarship limitation previously place) plus a relatively small annual stipend. (The appellate court subsequently overturned the stipend part, and the matter is now awaiting potential US Supreme Court review.)
What all that legal mumbo-jumbo means is that you might be able to get whatever endorsement deal you want, but the NCAA at present is still free to restrict any earnings you get to the total cost of attendance at the school. There are other cases out there that may blow up the whole system, but I'm guessing she was referring to this case and the possible conference/NCAA reaction to it.
As I've said numerous other times, I think the whole system will blow up in the mid-term. The television deals (and, just as important, the carriage rights available to conferences with their own networks) will be worth far less than they are now, which will create large financial issues for the bigger institutions. And somewhat contemporaneously, courts aren't going to permit Universities to continue to treat athletics as a business without some sense of free market principles. It doesn't need to be a truly unfettered market to pass legal muster, but I think the NCAA and its members have done itself no favors by chasing every last dollar and passing none of that money to the students.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Apr 12, 2016 14:25:38 GMT -5
This seems like a terrible idea which will lead to further abuse. Boosters will basically be allowed to buy recruits. Sam Gilbert says hi!
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 12, 2016 15:05:04 GMT -5
For all the talk of endorsements, and deals, I think it is important to note that even in a world where endorsements and deals were permitted, 99% of players' real "value" in dollars would be virtually zero. Keep in mind there are 351 Division I basketball teams and many of them are bad teams who are rarely even on TV (and the snarky comments about Georgetown being "bad" aren't necessary; as bad as we were, we were still in the top 60-70 this past season, which means there were about 280 worse teams). Even many of the "Power 5" and Big East schools have teams and players who would not command much in the way of endorsements or other similar deals.
Importantly, I do think it is important to note that much of the "value" in college basketball is based on the teams and universities that the guys are affiliated with. After all, fans are generally drawn to teams and not specific players (unlike the NBA where specific players like Lebron James, James Harden, Stephen Curry, etc. draw a lot of attention and a following). Sure, you might have some college stars who would command shoe deals, endorsements (I bet Kris Jenkins wishes he could do that now!), etc., but that's the exception. Moreover, colleges spend time and money cultivating players and developing them, while providing them with a free education. For most players, I think the value of a college degree (given 2016 tuition) far exceeds the individual value most individuals bring monetarily to their university.
All that being said, I do recognize that players bring some value to their university. It's a big money sport and universities benefit from it. I have no problem with players getting stipends (even though they were struck down by the appellate court, so it may be impossible anyway) or some extra money if done fairly, but I think anything beyond that is not necessarily productive. Again, I think part of this problem is taken care of if you allow high school players to go straight into the NBA. In that scenario, players can choose to be professionals immediately (or play in Europe) or they can choose to go the college route. Their choice.
In a total free market system, you'd basically have a situation where the top blue bloods and 5 star recruits would get all the money and everybody else would get very little. To me, that's basically a professional league.
Incidentally, I think the same principle is even more true in football; it would profit the big time football schools like Texas, LSU, etc. to the detriment of everybody else. And again, there would be a huge disparity between the money value that could be ascribed to somebody like Manziel, Tebow, etc., and the "value" of a punter or kicker, or the lesser celebrated positions.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Apr 12, 2016 16:05:19 GMT -5
For all the talk of endorsements, and deals, I think it is important to note that even in a world where endorsements and deals were permitted, 99% of players' real "value" in dollars would be virtually zero. Keep in mind there are 351 Division I basketball teams and many of them are bad teams who are rarely even on TV (and the snarky comments about Georgetown being "bad" aren't necessary; as bad as we were, we were still in the top 60-70 this past season, which means there were about 280 worse teams). Even many of the "Power 5" and Big East schools have teams and players who would not command much in the way of endorsements or other similar deals. Importantly, I do think it is important to note that much of the "value" in college basketball is based on the teams and universities that the guys are affiliated with. After all, fans are generally drawn to teams and not specific players (unlike the NBA where specific players like Lebron James, James Harden, Stephen Curry, etc. draw a lot of attention and a following). Sure, you might have some college stars who would command shoe deals, endorsements (I bet Kris Jenkins wishes he could do that now!), etc., but that's the exception. Moreover, colleges spend time and money cultivating players and developing them, while providing them with a free education. For most players, I think the value of a college degree (given 2016 tuition) far exceeds the individual value most individuals bring monetarily to their university. All that being said, I do recognize that players bring some value to their university. It's a big money sport and universities benefit from it. I have no problem with players getting stipends (even though they were struck down by the appellate court, so it may be impossible anyway) or some extra money if done fairly, but I think anything beyond that is not necessarily productive. Again, I think part of this problem is taken care of if you allow high school players to go straight into the NBA. In that scenario, players can choose to be professionals immediately (or play in Europe) or they can choose to go the college route. Their choice. In a total free market system, you'd basically have a situation where the top blue bloods and 5 star recruits would get all the money and everybody else would get very little. To me, that's basically a professional league. Incidentally, I think the same principle is even more true in football; it would profit the big time football schools like Texas, LSU, etc. to the detriment of everybody else. And again, there would be a huge disparity between the money value that could be ascribed to somebody like Manziel, Tebow, etc., and the "value" of a punter or kicker, or the lesser celebrated positions. The fact that the players are in some sense fungible in terms of fan interest is really irrelevant to the analysis of the situation. That's true in "professional" sports too, but the "owners" there (unlike the universities here) have been forced through player strikes to share significant portions of revenue with their employees. You're right that the value of most players is extremely limited in terms of endorsements. But we're potentially not just talking about endorsements in the traditional sense, we're talking also (and more significantly) to the use of player likenesses on television broadcasts and in videogames. There won't ever be a true free market system -- doing that would destroy any sense of competitive balance -- so you'll find some level of court-supervised limits to what the players are permitted to earn. If the only way to have a product (collegiate sports) is through some level of monopolistic controls, then those controls are perfectly permissible. That is, better to have a flawed product than none. I think the monopolistic nature of the two major sports wasn't troubling to people when the schools could plausibly claim they weren't making massive amounts of money through the endeavor (and I mean revenue, not necessarily profit). But that's simply not so now. As for the value of the scholarship or the education itself? Well, the argument doesn't really hold water. What if you were given a full academic scholarship, became an English major and through the wonderful English instruction at Georgetown, you wrote a massively successful novel while enrolled. Implausible, for many reasons, I know. But if you did, it would be laughable for there to be a rule that said "he's a college student, he is getting his education and that should be enough. If he can use his talents to make money, it should belong to us, not him. Once he's done with school, he can use his talents to make money." Sure, the scholarship has value -- great value. But don't you think the market for top, top tier Division I men's basketball players would be more than the value of that scholarship? The blue bloods are getting the top players NOW, just as they always have, and they would continue to do so if they could pay a bit more than everyone else. Same is true with Georgetown versus Howard. EDIT: We're all kidding ourselves if we don't fully appreciate that this is a professional endeavor now. How many kids that enroll at Georgetown come into school thinking they're "going pro in something other than sports" (to steal a line)? Some, admittedly, but few. The degree is a backup plan -- a nice one to be sure but a backup plan nevertheless. The fact that Duke alumni -- probably reasonably intelligent people -- continue to cheer hard for a program where the very best players enter with no intention of getting a Duke education -- shows the delusion that the entire modern system is built upon.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Apr 12, 2016 22:48:30 GMT -5
If this leads to GU players doing commercials for Easterns Motors, I'm all for it.
|
|