Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Fuck The NCAA]-Aiding The Homeless Ruled Improper Benefits Edition

A new year, and a new reason why I am firmly on Team Kessler:
Nacita, a backup who rushed for three touchdowns last season, walked on to the Baylor program in the summer of 2014 after being homeless for a year.

"A few months before enrolling, a close family friend approached me and said they didn't want me sleeping on floors and wondering how I was going to eat the next meal," Nacita wrote on his @Salsa_Nacho Twitter account, "so they insisted on putting me in an apartment and helping out with those living expenses.

"Because I accepted that offer instead of choosing to be homeless, I am no longer eligible to play football and pursue my dream. I had no idea I was breaking any rules, but I respect the decision of the NCAA."

Nacita, a native of Bakersfield, California, had transferred from Cornell but was unable to enroll in 2013. He lived homeless for the next year and took online community college courses at a library while sleeping on the floor at friends' apartments. He earned first-team Academic All-Big 12 honors in his first year at Baylor.

Nacita did not participate in the Bears' first spring practice on Tuesday.

"Silas Nacita will not be a part of the football program moving forward due to rules violations that impact his eligibility," Baylor athletic director Ian McCaw said in a statement released by the school. "We appreciate his contributions to Baylor football and wish him well as he completes his studies."

Of course, the NCAA, beacon of integrity that they are, has gone into full CYA mode over this, as evidenced by their tweet:


As always, fuck the fucking NCAA.

XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
CarpyJohnny ChopsockyMvrckRchanenDisruptedCapitalistLord_AsmodeusElldrenprogramjunkieMrAnthropyKamar
«1345678

Posts

  • MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    Good lord, the NCAA needs to create a position to have someone review the consequences of their actions. Maybe then they can stop looking comically evil.

    Dumb Hero wrote: »
    "Okay, you take 2d4 damage from the ogre's dick impaling your 2inch anus"
    Satan! Look here!
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    So, in response to @Santa Claustrophobia, I put as much stock in the NCAA's tweet as I would in the claims of a capo that he did not order the hit. And this for one reason - the noxious policy of restitution, which makes colleges act conservatively in favor of the NCAA, lest the NCAA take it out on the whole school. So no, they didn't have to order it directly - they just made it clear that the rules were what they are, and let Baylor be the bagman.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Oh, and the B1G is now wondering if the NCAA should end freshman eligibility, which is because they are so concerned about academic performance and not because of their getting their ass kicked repeatedly by teams who embrace the reality of one-and-done.

    The folks at LGM also detail why defending the NCAA is a fool's errand. One excellent point gets made (and it explains why Kessler has the fuckers dead to rights):
    Apologists for the NCAA cartel tend to assume that they’re advocating for athletes being treated like other students. But this is completely untrue. What they’re defending is in fact a set of unique and extraordinary burdens being placed on athletes. Virtually no other students are banned from receiving compensation from voluntary third parties, and this is because it won’t make a lick of sense. Why on earth shouldn’t a music student be able to take a paying gig or a journalism student sell a story? Similarly, we don’t claim that scholarship students working as RAs or in the bookstore can’t be compensated, or that staff and faculty who get tuition vouchers for family members don’t need to be additionally compensated for their work. These rules aren’t about ensuring that athletes are “really” students or whatever; they’re about attempting to preserve competitive balance. And this isn’t a good reason to allow athletes to be exploited, even before we get to the fact that the NCAA doesn’t have anything remotely resembling competitive balance even with these rules.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    mcdermottJuliusJihadJesusLord_AsmodeusElldrenelectricitylikesmeprogramjunkieDrezKamarShadowhope
  • TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus Registered User regular
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Not you too, Mr. President:
    President Barack Obama says compensation for college athletes would "ruin the sense of college sports."

    Obama said in an interview released Saturday that what frustrates him, though, is college coaches, athletic directors and the NCAA making huge amounts of money while an athlete is banished for getting a tattoo or free use of a car.

    "That's not fair," Obama told The Huffington Post in response to a question about whether college athletes should be compensated because they are money-makers for the NCAA, television stations and advertisers.

    Compensation would "create a situation where there are bidding wars. How much does a Anthony Davis get paid as opposed to somebody else?" Obama said, referring to the power forward who played one season at Kentucky before heading to the NBA.

    "And that I do think would ruin the sense of college sports," Obama said.

    The interview was released Saturday, hours after Obama cheered as his niece's Princeton team remained undefeated by topping Wisconsin-Green Bay in an NCAA Tournament first-round game played in Maryland.

    Obama's niece is Leslie Robinson, daughter of Michelle Obama's brother, Craig Robinson. She did not appear in the game for her team.

    Obama sat a few rows away from courtside surrounded by an entourage that included his daughter Malia, mother-in-law Marian Robinson, Craig Robinson and other Robinson family members. Both Craig Robinson and the first lady are Princeton graduates.

    Michelle Obama missed seeing her niece because she is traveling in Cambodia.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    So is he triangulating again? Or is he actually a dipshit?

    Because I'm at that point now where anybody opposing actual compensation for players is a dipshit. It's just not a defensible position anymore.

    electricitylikesmeprogramjunkieKamarShadowhope
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    It mostly seems like he doesn't want college sports to be the professional thing that it is or doesn't understand that you can't put the cat back in the bag. College sports is just another level of professional sports, so they should be paid. Ain't no one going back to amateur sports any time soon.

    Captain MarcusJuliusLord_AsmodeusElldrenelectricitylikesmeKamarShadowhopeMagell
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited March 2015
    shryke wrote: »
    It mostly seems like he doesn't want college sports to be the professional thing that it is or doesn't understand that you can't put the cat back in the bag. College sports is just another level of professional sports, so they should be paid. Ain't no one going back to amateur sports any time soon.

    Right. That's why it's a dipshit position. The amateur student-athlete is a myth, has been for a good long time (if it was ever a thing). So either you realize that, and don't want them to be paid anyway (which makes you a dipshit) or you fail to understand that (yet still want to speak out on the issue, so dipshit).

    Like I said, triangulation is a better explanation, since he's basically saying "gee willickers I think money would totally ruin the game, but it's kinda odd that those coaches and NCAA suits and sponsors throw so much money around..." It's a nice middle of the road position where you totally think coaches and staff are overpaid, but players shouldn't be paid. But...that's absolutely irrelevant. Coach pay ain't going down.

    And it's funny that he mentions a one-and-done athlete as some kind of example...yes, it would be totally sad if the bidding war had begun an entire year earlier, instead of forcing him to play for a single season uncompensated, and unprotected in case of injury. That would be awful, and totally undermine the integrity of the game. Or something. Fucking stupid.

    mcdermott on
    AngelHedgieelectricitylikesmeNSDFRandShadowhope
  • MvrckMvrck Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    It mostly seems like he doesn't want college sports to be the professional thing that it is or doesn't understand that you can't put the cat back in the bag. College sports is just another level of professional sports, so they should be paid. Ain't no one going back to amateur sports any time soon.

    Right. That's why it's a dipshit position. The amateur student-athlete is a myth, has been for a good long time (if it was ever a thing). So either you realize that, and don't want them to be paid anyway (which makes you a dipshit) or you fail to understand that (yet still want to speak out on the issue, so dipshit).

    Like I said, triangulation is a better explanation, since he's basically saying "gee willickers I think money would totally ruin the game, but it's kinda odd that those coaches and NCAA suits and sponsors throw so much money around..." It's a nice middle of the road position where you totally think coaches and staff are overpaid, but players shouldn't be paid. But...that's absolutely irrelevant. Coach pay ain't going down.

    And it's funny that he mentions a one-and-done athlete as some kind of example...yes, it would be totally sad if the bidding war had begun an entire year earlier, instead of forcing him to play for a single season uncompensated, and unprotected in case of injury. That would be awful, and totally undermine the integrity of the game. Or something. Fucking stupid.

    The real fucking answer to one and done is make basketball and football like Hockey and baseball, where the draft is out of high school and doesn't kill their eligibility. But the NFL would never go for that so it won't happen.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
  • AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    Not you too, Mr. President:
    President Barack Obama says compensation for college athletes would "ruin the sense of college sports."

    Obama said in an interview released Saturday that what frustrates him, though, is college coaches, athletic directors and the NCAA making huge amounts of money while an athlete is banished for getting a tattoo or free use of a car.

    "That's not fair," Obama told The Huffington Post in response to a question about whether college athletes should be compensated because they are money-makers for the NCAA, television stations and advertisers.

    Compensation would "create a situation where there are bidding wars. How much does a Anthony Davis get paid as opposed to somebody else?" Obama said, referring to the power forward who played one season at Kentucky before heading to the NBA.

    "And that I do think would ruin the sense of college sports," Obama said.

    The interview was released Saturday, hours after Obama cheered as his niece's Princeton team remained undefeated by topping Wisconsin-Green Bay in an NCAA Tournament first-round game played in Maryland.

    Obama's niece is Leslie Robinson, daughter of Michelle Obama's brother, Craig Robinson. She did not appear in the game for her team.

    Obama sat a few rows away from courtside surrounded by an entourage that included his daughter Malia, mother-in-law Marian Robinson, Craig Robinson and other Robinson family members. Both Craig Robinson and the first lady are Princeton graduates.

    Michelle Obama missed seeing her niece because she is traveling in Cambodia.

    This is a misleading version of what he said.

    "Obama said in an interview released Saturday that what frustrates him, though, is college coaches, athletic directors and the NCAA making huge amounts of money while an athlete is banished for getting a tattoo or free use of a car.

    "That's not fair," Obama told The Huffington Post in response to a question about whether college athletes should be compensated because they are money-makers for the NCAA, television stations and advertisers."

    The second paragraph makes it sound like Obama is saying "That's not fair" in answer to the question of whether college athletes should be compensated. In actuality, the whole section of the interview is in response to that question, and the "That's not fair" refers to the sentence beforehand.

    Better to go to the full transcript on these things:
    HUFFPOST: Sticking to colleges -- it's bracket time. Your bracket is better than mine, I'm assuming at this point. Mine's pretty bad.

    OBAMA: Not by much. (Laughter)

    HUFFPOST: Not by much? OK. Shouldn't these players be compensated for all the revenue they're generating for the NCAA and the television stations and the advertisers?

    OBAMA: Here's what I've said. That the students need to be taken better care of because they are generating a lot of revenue here. An immediate step that the NCAA could take -- that some conferences have already taken -- is if you offer a scholarship to a kid coming into school, that scholarship sticks, no matter what.

    It doesn't matter whether they get cut, it doesn't matter whether they get hurt. You are now entering into a bargain and responsible for them.

    Health care. You've got to make sure that if they get injured while they're playing that they're covered.

    I do think that recognizing that the majority of these student athletes are not going to end up playing professional ball -- this isn’t just a farm system for the NBA or the NFL -- means that the universities have more responsibilities than right now they’re showing --

    HUFFPOST: But what about compensation?

    OBAMA: -- and what does frustrate me is where I see coaches getting paid millions of dollars, athletic directors getting paid millions of dollars, the NCAA making huge amounts of money, and then some kid gets a tattoo or gets a free use of a car and suddenly they’re banished. That’s not fair.

    In terms of compensation, I think the challenge would just then start being, do we really want to just create a situation where there are bidding wars? How much does a Anthony Davis get paid --

    HUFFPOST: A lot. (Laughter)

    OBAMA: -- as opposed to somebody else? And that I do think would ruin the sense of college sports.

    At this point the interview switches to a different topic. So I would say that even if Obama isn't coming out for paying the athletes, he's still advocating for a better situation than they have now (guaranteed scholarships and medical coverage, relaxed rules about outside compensation).

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
    ShadowenJuliusKing RiptorShadowfireDevoutlyApatheticshrykeMan in the MistsfugacityCorehealerLord_AsmodeusElldrenelectricitylikesmeprogramjunkieKamarMagell
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    The NCAA is huge, taking a stand would have to constitute an official policy position, which he doesn't want to do. Both because Republicans will fuck it up but also because I don't think he thinks its accomplishable at the moment.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    eh

    he's basically agreed with 95% of critics' position there, stopping short only of saying that NCAA players ought to be able to draw a salary. While I don't think a 'bidding war' for anthony davis et al would 'ruin the sense of college sports,' it's hardly some retrograde position he's taking.

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    accept your death, and become dangerous
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Pokemon Champion (retired) Ann ArborRegistered User regular
    The thing he's missing is there's already a bidding war, it's just in the dark. Or hilariously skirting NCAA rules.

    Kentucky's dorm scam is amazing.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
    mcdermott
  • milskimilski Watch them come Registered User regular
    edited March 2015
    My only theoretical reason for not liking the idea of compensation is that athletics can already be a severe pit for university finances if they aren't drawing huge crowds or winning championships, and any significant payout to athletes could add to that. But that's more of an issue for university funding in general being incredibly complicated.

    milski on
    By the meter of Earth, they come slowly. By their own, they come raging, urgent, ablaze.
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Pokemon Champion (retired) Ann ArborRegistered User regular
    The biggest practical issue has always been if it would run a foul of Title IX. Or do you have to pay all the players, including the non-revenue generating ones. And as a related issue, if you don't pay everyone, do you pay the niche sports at schools that do generate a profit (Michigan/Minnesota/BC/North Dakota hockey, UConn/Tennessee women's basketball as examples).

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
  • milskimilski Watch them come Registered User regular
    edited March 2015
    Even in profitable sports, at some point athletic compensation would start to be a drain on university finances. Ignoring the issue of whether or not you could pay them below minimum wage if they were actually being compensated rather than simply given scholarships, top tier athletes even in college might require a lot of money to be enticed once payment is expected. I wouldn't be surprised if blue-chip players were offered more than 100k a year to play; even in profitable sports that would eat into your revenue a good bit. Even the most profitable teams aren't making more than $20MM without subsidies from their university included, and most are probably raking in far less profit than that (or losing money).

    So if a given football team has, say, five blue chip players and twenty people making grad-student money (25K a year subsidy), they'd be paying out $1MM/year, which would be more than 10% of even very profitable, competitive teams profits. Obviously, teams that aren't very competitive won't be paying nearly as much, but even paying their few scholarship players a grad-student stipend would put them much further into the red.

    This is more of a practical issue with compensation than an argument against it in theory, I guess.

    EDIT: The money given for compensation basically assumes that you can selectively compensate players (much like you can selectively offer scholarships), and teams won't be required to compensate all players, since there's obviously a big gap (legally and theoretically) between allowing you to pay college athletes and making college athlete a job with guaranteed payouts. I'm also probably lowballing the amount of pay a top tier university would be putting out simply because I'm assuming they only recruit like six compensatable prospects a year.

    milski on
    By the meter of Earth, they come slowly. By their own, they come raging, urgent, ablaze.
  • cckerberoscckerberos Registered User regular
    Kentucky's dorm scam is amazing.

    Despite that article's conclusions, I have the feeling being a non-athlete in that dorm would be a very mixed blessing.

    Handgimp
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    milski wrote: »
    Even in profitable sports, at some point athletic compensation would start to be a drain on university finances.

    Not even close

    What would happen is that spending would shift from fancy dorms/facilities (like the above) and from crazy fucking expensive coaches to players. At the moment all the players salary essentially goes into coaches, facilities, and recruiting efforts. All that would change is that much of that money would shift to players

    wbBv3fj.png
    programjunkie
  • JazzJazz UKRegistered User regular
    Would a cap be un-implementable? Or even a fixed rate to at least give a living wage equivalent or something?

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Jazz wrote: »
    Would a cap be un-implementable? Or even a fixed rate to at least give a living wage equivalent or something?

    It would have to be done the same way the pros do it - through a negotiated labor agreement. Which leads to one of the more hilarious aspects of this - state schools in states where state employee unions are illegal would very quickly find themselves at a disadvantage in recruiting because of this.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    fugacityLord_Asmodeus
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Jazz wrote: »
    Would a cap be un-implementable? Or even a fixed rate to at least give a living wage equivalent or something?

    It would have to be done the same way the pros do it - through a negotiated labor agreement. Which leads to one of the more hilarious aspects of this - state schools in states where state employee unions are illegal would very quickly find themselves at a disadvantage in recruiting because of this.

    Would those student employees actually need to be unionized? Couldn't the CBA simply require all organizations participating in sanctioned competitons to abide by the cap?

  • daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    milski wrote: »
    Even in profitable sports, at some point athletic compensation would start to be a drain on university finances.

    Not even close

    What would happen is that spending would shift from fancy dorms/facilities (like the above) and from crazy fucking expensive coaches to players. At the moment all the players salary essentially goes into coaches, facilities, and recruiting efforts. All that would change is that much of that money would shift to players

    I disagree, fancy-pants dorms and facilities probably wouldn't be subject to the cap, so what would probably happen is that the perks (and the insane coach salaries) would stay in place, and players' salaries would be an additional cost that's carved out of the money that should be going to that whole education thing that universities are supposed to be doing.

  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Jazz wrote: »
    Would a cap be un-implementable? Or even a fixed rate to at least give a living wage equivalent or something?

    It would have to be done the same way the pros do it - through a negotiated labor agreement. Which leads to one of the more hilarious aspects of this - state schools in states where state employee unions are illegal would very quickly find themselves at a disadvantage in recruiting because of this.

    Would those student employees actually need to be unionized? Couldn't the CBA simply require all organizations participating in sanctioned competitons to abide by the cap?

    But every players union would if it could abolish caps.

    And an industry wide union like the various players associations are the only reason caps are legal at all. Or in the NCAA case, some legal fiction built around the nobility of the cap being 0.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    milski wrote: »
    Even in profitable sports, at some point athletic compensation would start to be a drain on university finances.

    Not even close

    What would happen is that spending would shift from fancy dorms/facilities (like the above) and from crazy fucking expensive coaches to players. At the moment all the players salary essentially goes into coaches, facilities, and recruiting efforts. All that would change is that much of that money would shift to players

    I disagree, fancy-pants dorms and facilities probably wouldn't be subject to the cap, so what would probably happen is that the perks (and the insane coach salaries) would stay in place, and players' salaries would be an additional cost that's carved out of the money that should be going to that whole education thing that universities are supposed to be doing.

    If players could receive direct compensation, the other perks would matter less though. They wouldn't go away entirely, but it would be better.

    And direct salary to athletes wouldn't even need to be huge. Just eliminate the other regs. Let the boosters give them range rovers to drive around, let them get all the free tattoos they please, and most importantly let them cut their own licensing deals and get paid for appearances. It might actually reduce some salary pressure on the institution if a big name player can take in thousands or more from other sources. Sources (like apparel endorsements) that may exist regardless of where they play.

    At least as long as they stay in a power conference. Which means it will create a divide of haves and have nots among schools. And by "create" I mean "change absolutely nothing" because is anybody still pretending that when West Podunk plays Alabama or whatever it's anything but the latter padding their stats? The line of competitiveness goes deeper in basketball, but not all the way down.

    AngelHedgie
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Of course that would force us to stop pretending that an Alabama/Ball State football game is totally just two groups of scrappy student athletes on equal amateur footing getting together to share their love of the game.

    (Is Ball State a competitive school? I forget.)

  • daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    Depends on how much the direct compensation is. Plus, since every school would be working under the same cap, perks would be a really good way to differentiate themselves. A school could offer equal money and be able to throw in the pimped out dorm and whatnot on top of that.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Pokemon Champion (retired) Ann ArborRegistered User regular
    Hah, no. Though they had one good year that led to much suffering for me.

    Fucking Brady Hoke.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Depends on how much the direct compensation is. Plus, since every school would be working under the same cap, perks would be a really good way to differentiate themselves. A school could offer equal money and be able to throw in the pimped out dorm and whatnot on top of that.

    Or a school could allow boosters to build the dorm. Or allow third party advertisers or partners to build it. Or put them up in apartments. Once you remove all the silly restrictions in place now, all kinds of options open up. But that first requires us to admit that the major programs don't consist of students who happen to have a passion for sports, but rather that many are there specifically to compete. It's a semi-pro league loosely affiliated with schools.

    And the school can save money on bogus Swahili programs, too.

    Juliusprogramjunkie
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Pokemon Champion (retired) Ann ArborRegistered User regular
    The simple short term solution is everyone on athletic scholarship gets a cost of living stipend (~3-5k) and can market themselves however the hell they want. That's expensive, but could be basically achieved by lowering the salary of the head football coach by 20% and cutting a bunch of useless marketing chaff from the athletic department.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
    mcdermottJazzJuliusLord_AsmodeusMagell
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited March 2015
    If they have no market value then their salary will be low. But still no argument in there for paying at least minimum wage for hours of practice and games.

    Edit: ah, read the link. Said it better than I could. And this is again why I no longer see controversy here, merely right and stupid.

    mcdermott on
    AngelHedgieprogramjunkie
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    I still think that colleges should have to apply the same amateurism standards to the coaching staff as well. It'd solve so many problems right there.

    mcdermottPolaritie
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    if ADs have X amount of money based on revenue/funding, and have to pay some portion of that out to athletes, expenditures elsewhere necessarily have to decrease (coach salaries etc.) Athletic directors cannot just take money out of whatever other portion of university operations to fund sports (at least, not without governing bodies agreeing to it.) Perhaps if players could simply be paid market value, coaches' ability to convince players to come play for them is a skill that would command less of a premium.

    some level of 'perks' would always be involved in the recruiting process (I mean, would you rather go to school in a big city, somewhere with warm beaches, or in oklahoma?) but they would become a secondary concern compared to salary

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    accept your death, and become dangerous
  • kaidkaid Registered User regular


    Yes clearly they have no value thus if they did not show up to play at all clearly their uniforms would go out and shoot the balls just as well with no players wearing them.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Pokemon Champion (retired) Ann ArborRegistered User regular
    if ADs have X amount of money based on revenue/funding, and have to pay some portion of that out to athletes, expenditures elsewhere necessarily have to decrease (coach salaries etc.) Athletic directors cannot just take money out of whatever other portion of university operations to fund sports (at least, not without governing bodies agreeing to it.) Perhaps if players could simply be paid market value, coaches' ability to convince players to come play for them is a skill that would command less of a premium.

    some level of 'perks' would always be involved in the recruiting process (I mean, would you rather go to school in a big city, somewhere with warm beaches, or in oklahoma?) but they would become a secondary concern compared to salary

    Athletic directors would just raise ticket prices and then blame fans when they hit the point where the market won't bear the cost.

    Or maybe that's just Dave fucking Brandon.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    if ADs have X amount of money based on revenue/funding, and have to pay some portion of that out to athletes, expenditures elsewhere necessarily have to decrease (coach salaries etc.) Athletic directors cannot just take money out of whatever other portion of university operations to fund sports (at least, not without governing bodies agreeing to it.) Perhaps if players could simply be paid market value, coaches' ability to convince players to come play for them is a skill that would command less of a premium.

    some level of 'perks' would always be involved in the recruiting process (I mean, would you rather go to school in a big city, somewhere with warm beaches, or in oklahoma?) but they would become a secondary concern compared to salary

    Fixing the utterly criminal eligibility rules would destroy the "ol' ball coach" model so prevalent in the college game, yet non-existent in the pros.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    kaid wrote: »
    Yes clearly they have no value thus if they did not show up to play at all clearly their uniforms would go out and shoot the balls just as well with no players wearing them.

    It depends on whether there's someone else sitting on the bench who could easily replace you. To have significant value, you need to bring something to the field that no other available player can, or have no one else who is willing to work for fewer benefits than you.

  • JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    jothki wrote: »
    kaid wrote: »
    Yes clearly they have no value thus if they did not show up to play at all clearly their uniforms would go out and shoot the balls just as well with no players wearing them.

    It depends on whether there's someone else sitting on the bench who could easily replace you. To have significant value, you need to bring something to the field that no other available player can, or have no one else who is willing to work for fewer benefits than you.

    And considering that there are approximately a fuck load of decent competitive basketball teams, this is probably accurate (kind of) there. It's probably perfectly accurate in, say, women's field hockey where the better player may give you a much better chance of winning but raises the dollar value of the entertainment your team provides by $0 since you don't get a TV deal either way.

    That's the big problem, to me. For the vast majority of athletes, a free college education is probably overvaluing the worth of their skills. So if you want to have a 'pay for play' system, it can't be built entirely around the edge cases like a Tebow who misses out on millions in endorsements and salary packing a stadium.

    Personally, I favor ending the eligibility fuckmuppetry and allowing transfers, endorsement deals and sponsorships, and full cost of living scholarships over pay for play. But the current system is transparently bullshit in a lot of ways.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    It would be interesting to see what the market would actually value players at, if they had to be paid in "real" dollars rather than given seats in classes at a relatively low marginal cost to the institution. It wouldn't be surprising if, in many cases, the monetary compensation for an NCAA athlete currently on scholarship, absent the current system, was actually less than the cost of attendance at the university. Some of course would likely make significantly more.

    Julius
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Cross posting this post from @Santa Claustrophobia here, because it's a bit more germane to the discussion here:
    Hey, remember when the NCAA sanctioned USC for Reggie Bush taking benefits? Turns out, they were looking for reasons to find the school guilty.

    This mostly comes from former RB coach Todd McNair suing the NCAA for defamation. He may have a point:
    In the same email thread, infractions committee member Britton Banowsky seemed befuddled by the case against McNair.

    “It is challenging for me to make the finding when there is no allegation that he personally was involved in any rules violations, or even had specific knowledge of any,” Banowsky wrote.

    Myers replied she wasn't comfortable with accusing McNair of lying to the infractions committee.

    “As Britton says, on this record it is hard to find that he was ‘involved' in anything,” she wrote.

    Also, the NCAA felt they needed to hold the hiring of Lane Kiffin against the school:
    In the same memo, Uphoff also criticized USC's hiring of Kiffin as head coach in 2010 as evidence the school didn't take the Bush scandal seriously.

    Uphoff made reference to Paul Dee, a longtime University of Miami athletic director who was then chairman of the NCAA's infractions committee for USC's case.

    “Paul Dee was brought in at Miami to clean up a program with serious problems. USC has responded to its problems by bringing in Lane Kiffin,” Uphoff wrote. “They need a wake-up call that doing things the wrong way will have serious consequences.”

    A year after the NCAA handed down sanctions against USC in 2010 — when Dee famously said “high-profile players demand high-profile compliance” — Miami came under investigation for infractions involving multiple players and booster Nevin Shapiro, many of which occurred during Dee's tenure.

    Howard took a similar position in a March 2010 email to the infractions committee.

    “Lack of institutional control … (and do we add the hiring of Lane Kiffin?), is a very easy call for me,” Howard wrote.

    It should be noted that, for all his faults, Kiffin has never been sanctioned for a major violation and hiring him to replace Carroll did not violate any rules.

    Oh, and Bush's reticence to assist the investigation was also part of why USC needed to be punished:
    Uphoff, as well, wanted to make an example of Bush.

    “But … it is inconceivable to me that an innocent person in Bush's situation with all that he has at stake, wouldn't come forward with the documents to prove his innocence,” Uphoff wrote. “Accordingly, we should hold him accountable. … Given the limited powers of the NCAA enforcement staff we emasculate them if we allow ex-athletes to refuse to cooperate and suffer no adverse inference from a failure to supply information under these circumstances.”

    Uphoff also argued against upholding “too high of a burden of proof” and defended the “inconsistencies re dates and details about events that spanned over 15 months” by marketer Lake.

    Per the article, Uphoff and Howard were non-voting members of the committee. Oh, and Howard also wanted to make sure that the NCAA would let the public know that they didn't believe McNair at all:
    “McNair should have all inferences negatively inferred against him,” Roscoe Howard, a former U.S. attorney and nonvoting member of the committee, wrote in a March 2010 email. “Credibility determinations are for this committee and this committee alone. As with all tribunals or fact finders, we need not say why we disbelieve him, we need only let the public, or whomever, know that we disbelieve him.”

    Ooo, classy.

    And, it turns out that all the documents released so far were chosen by the NCAA for release.
    Per the court's order, the NCAA chose what documents to publicly refile. About 200 pages that had been sealed were left out of Tuesday's filing. The omissions include some of the committee's most inflammatory emails that Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Frederick Shaller wrote in 2012 “tend to show ill will or hatred.”

    There is worse to come.


    Finally, a reminder of who Paul Dee was:
    Dee, you may recall, was the Committee on Infractions chairman for USC's much-publicized case last summer involving former stars Reggie Bush and O.J. Mayo. It was Dee who, in announcing some of the stiffest penalties of the last 20 years (a two-year bowl ban and 30 docked scholarships), closed with the preachy reminder that "high-profile athletes demand high-profile compliance. Dee, Miami's AD during most of the period covering Shapiro's allegations, is retired and no longer under NCAA jurisdiction. Still, it seems only fair he should spend a day at USC's Heritage Hall wearing a sandwich board with the word "Hypocrite."

    The NCAA should really just stop trying to be as bad as FIFA.

    EDIT:
    You can read the e-mails here.

    So, here's the thing - McNair is what I would consider to be one of the three major legal threats to the NCAA currently (the other two being O'Bannon and Kessler.) And it is that much of a threat because of what he was demanding to be put in the public record, which would demonstrate that the NCAA basically started from the position of guilt, and then did everything to work backwards from there. With everything that was revealed (and the NCAA has been fighting for years to keep this under wraps) as well as the utter surrender to Penn State, the enforcement division is pretty much dead in the water when it comes to institutional enforcement.

    I fully expect that USC will be demanding that the NCAA restore the vacated wins and championships at this point. I also have the suspicion that they will try to fight it, but will concede once the legal ramifications are pointed out (namely that USC could very well get some significant damages from a trial.)

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
«1345678
Sign In or Register to comment.