Sally Jenkins on how to fix college sports.
- Thread starter Class of 67
- Start date
Agree with #1 and #2.
#3 has its problems. For example, I doubt a player would be able to license their jersey since the design rights are likely held by the school. Think of an NBA player independently licensing his jersey. It doesn't happen.
#4. It's naive to think restructuring an athletic department will make it less fraud prone. Cheaters gonna cheat.
#5. Give the players credit for health and phys ed requirements but I can't see how playing a sport should be a substitute for other basic requirements. Academics can't be waived just because someone plays a sport as it would make a joke of any degree they receive.
This post was edited on 3/23 11:17 AM by NittPicker
#3 has its problems. For example, I doubt a player would be able to license their jersey since the design rights are likely held by the school. Think of an NBA player independently licensing his jersey. It doesn't happen.
#4. It's naive to think restructuring an athletic department will make it less fraud prone. Cheaters gonna cheat.
#5. Give the players credit for health and phys ed requirements but I can't see how playing a sport should be a substitute for other basic requirements. Academics can't be waived just because someone plays a sport as it would make a joke of any degree they receive.
This post was edited on 3/23 11:17 AM by NittPicker
I guess I'm a scoundrel...
Because making freshman ineligible is a horrible idea. The level of basketball, while entertaining, is very low these days. Having the top 10 high schoolers play in the D league or overseas every year will make it worse
I like the other 4 though
Because making freshman ineligible is a horrible idea. The level of basketball, while entertaining, is very low these days. Having the top 10 high schoolers play in the D league or overseas every year will make it worse
I like the other 4 though
"Naive" is the best thing I can say about this.
Make Freshmen ineligible again - I am afraid the ship has sailed on this. To do this, the NCAA would have to negotiated contracts with the leagues and the player's unions. Good luck with that. Plus, there is a huge difference in baseball, basketball, football, volleyball, lacrosse, etc. Two examples: Baseball has their own feeder group in the minor leagues, Basketball has gone international. I am sure some players at Kentucky basketball are happy to put their year in, make it two and they will be playing for Moscow until they are NBA eligible. I can see doing this for football, seeing that it is played so early in the kid's transition to college. But I fear it will really just end up with tons of kids coming into school early and missing their senior years of HS. Make 'ships good for five years - When negotiating contracts, I always think "make all issues be equally binding". This is a no brainer. Also, let the kid out of the five year 'ship if his head coach changes, with no penalties. Allow players endorsement capabilities - this is a non-starter. There is no difference here then just paying the kid. Schools will set up companies that will pay kids for their endorsements just to come to the school. They will be professionals, lock, stock and barrel. Just give them "gold pants". If you do this, you might as well just pay them. There is no real difference. Deny Athletic Department Autonomy at Universities - not sure what this is supposed to solve. I mean, look at NC & Syracuse. Do you really think other departments wouldn't comply to keep their $50m/year revenue stream? Give players academic credits - I like this idea. In fact, I brought it up on this very board over five years ago. The risk is that you water down the impact of the first 4/5 years when a player is eligible. However, we are kidding ourselves if we think kids are getting a good education while playing, say, football in the SEC. However, I can see making a kid declare a major, take 15+ hours each semester, maintaining a minimum GPA, and still giving him/her credits toward another three years after eligibility is used up.
Make Freshmen ineligible again - I am afraid the ship has sailed on this. To do this, the NCAA would have to negotiated contracts with the leagues and the player's unions. Good luck with that. Plus, there is a huge difference in baseball, basketball, football, volleyball, lacrosse, etc. Two examples: Baseball has their own feeder group in the minor leagues, Basketball has gone international. I am sure some players at Kentucky basketball are happy to put their year in, make it two and they will be playing for Moscow until they are NBA eligible. I can see doing this for football, seeing that it is played so early in the kid's transition to college. But I fear it will really just end up with tons of kids coming into school early and missing their senior years of HS. Make 'ships good for five years - When negotiating contracts, I always think "make all issues be equally binding". This is a no brainer. Also, let the kid out of the five year 'ship if his head coach changes, with no penalties. Allow players endorsement capabilities - this is a non-starter. There is no difference here then just paying the kid. Schools will set up companies that will pay kids for their endorsements just to come to the school. They will be professionals, lock, stock and barrel. Just give them "gold pants". If you do this, you might as well just pay them. There is no real difference. Deny Athletic Department Autonomy at Universities - not sure what this is supposed to solve. I mean, look at NC & Syracuse. Do you really think other departments wouldn't comply to keep their $50m/year revenue stream? Give players academic credits - I like this idea. In fact, I brought it up on this very board over five years ago. The risk is that you water down the impact of the first 4/5 years when a player is eligible. However, we are kidding ourselves if we think kids are getting a good education while playing, say, football in the SEC. However, I can see making a kid declare a major, take 15+ hours each semester, maintaining a minimum GPA, and still giving him/her credits toward another three years after eligibility is used up.
Whoa! Re: Point 1, the NCAA would not have to
negotiate contracts with leagues or players unions to make freshmen ineligible. Indeed, to the contrary, negotiating contracts would open up a major Pandora's Box i.e. one organization (NCAA) is negotiating with other organizations (NFL, NBA) and their respective players unions so that college age players are "directed" to schools where they receive statutorily limited compensation. You'd have law firms chomping at the bit to represent college players in the lawsuits against all parties to those contracts.
negotiate contracts with leagues or players unions to make freshmen ineligible. Indeed, to the contrary, negotiating contracts would open up a major Pandora's Box i.e. one organization (NCAA) is negotiating with other organizations (NFL, NBA) and their respective players unions so that college age players are "directed" to schools where they receive statutorily limited compensation. You'd have law firms chomping at the bit to represent college players in the lawsuits against all parties to those contracts.
Really shows how ignorant/dumb/naive these writers are
she understand almost nothing of the law governing college athletics, the rolls taken by corrupt school officials/boosters, CBA agreements with various professional leagues, and how corrupt big time college sports truly is.
You have to wonder if she really believes what she is writing, if she has been put up to it, or is just blind.
she understand almost nothing of the law governing college athletics, the rolls taken by corrupt school officials/boosters, CBA agreements with various professional leagues, and how corrupt big time college sports truly is.
You have to wonder if she really believes what she is writing, if she has been put up to it, or is just blind.
Right..misstated my comments....
and it is different in each sport. Take the NBA for example....Freshman have to go play in college because they are not eligible for the draft. Same is true of football. However, things are changing. Basketball players can go the a Euro league. Baseball players can go into the minors. Football players have no such options. So making Frosh ineligible for all sports is not tenable in some. So that leads you to making freshmen not eligible in some, but yes for others. Probably not defendable in the long run.
If the NCAA goes back to not making Frosh elegible, many will seek other options. when the next LeBron James comes out, and goes to play in Moscow for a year making $5m, that notion will fall apart pretty quickly. Every college team, including PSU, would be happy to go the Kentucky route and make 8 figures off of the kid for a year rather than loose him to Moscow.
Having said that, I do believe that there is an agreement in football between the NFL, NFLPA and the NCAA to mitigate a) the cost of player development for the NFL and b) to extend player's careers (the NFLPA; who doesn't represent a college kid until he's drafter and/or signs his first NFL contract).
and it is different in each sport. Take the NBA for example....Freshman have to go play in college because they are not eligible for the draft. Same is true of football. However, things are changing. Basketball players can go the a Euro league. Baseball players can go into the minors. Football players have no such options. So making Frosh ineligible for all sports is not tenable in some. So that leads you to making freshmen not eligible in some, but yes for others. Probably not defendable in the long run.
If the NCAA goes back to not making Frosh elegible, many will seek other options. when the next LeBron James comes out, and goes to play in Moscow for a year making $5m, that notion will fall apart pretty quickly. Every college team, including PSU, would be happy to go the Kentucky route and make 8 figures off of the kid for a year rather than loose him to Moscow.
Having said that, I do believe that there is an agreement in football between the NFL, NFLPA and the NCAA to mitigate a) the cost of player development for the NFL and b) to extend player's careers (the NFLPA; who doesn't represent a college kid until he's drafter and/or signs his first NFL contract).
Re: If you can find an agreement
I am sure no such written agreement exists. But I've read up on Mo Clarett's law suit and it is pretty compelling:
the NCAA, for lack of better term, compels a player to play for 3, 4 or 5 years with few options (other than to simply not play) and getting zero pay against an organization making, literally, billions. By any definition, it is exploitation. The NFL gets a free developmental league while baseball, hockey and basketball spend a ton on developmental leagues. Of course they want a free feeder system.The NFLPA doesn't represent college kids. And since the NCAA and NFL give them no options, the NFLPA has no standing. In fact, has an obligation to the current players, who may be on the street if there was a sudden influx of cheaper players.
So its pretty clear why these teams like the status quo. Its serves their financial needs.
I am sure no such written agreement exists. But I've read up on Mo Clarett's law suit and it is pretty compelling:
the NCAA, for lack of better term, compels a player to play for 3, 4 or 5 years with few options (other than to simply not play) and getting zero pay against an organization making, literally, billions. By any definition, it is exploitation. The NFL gets a free developmental league while baseball, hockey and basketball spend a ton on developmental leagues. Of course they want a free feeder system.The NFLPA doesn't represent college kids. And since the NCAA and NFL give them no options, the NFLPA has no standing. In fact, has an obligation to the current players, who may be on the street if there was a sudden influx of cheaper players.
So its pretty clear why these teams like the status quo. Its serves their financial needs.
Yes.....you are ;-)
But you are certainly not alone....in fact, I would guess you are in the LARGE majority.
The issue - of course - isn't "freshman eligibility", per se - the issue is why would/could/should ANY University prostitute its mission as in institution of higher education in order to achieve a more competitive, entertaining athletics product? (rhetorical question of course......the answer is $$$$$)
It is so surreal, and yet it has reached the point where folks just accept it as "the norm". It is a shame.....but, as I said, you certainly have plenty of company. The "people" have spoken (CLEARLY) and they want their college sports - and to hell with any morsel of integrity. Alas. It is what it is.
But you are certainly not alone....in fact, I would guess you are in the LARGE majority.
The issue - of course - isn't "freshman eligibility", per se - the issue is why would/could/should ANY University prostitute its mission as in institution of higher education in order to achieve a more competitive, entertaining athletics product? (rhetorical question of course......the answer is $$$$$)
It is so surreal, and yet it has reached the point where folks just accept it as "the norm". It is a shame.....but, as I said, you certainly have plenty of company. The "people" have spoken (CLEARLY) and they want their college sports - and to hell with any morsel of integrity. Alas. It is what it is.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
I have to admit, players wanting to sell autographs or sell their gear...
offends me less and less when guys like Dabo Sweeny and Mark Emmert exist.
offends me less and less when guys like Dabo Sweeny and Mark Emmert exist.
Perhaps Sally should apply as much time and effort into finding a solution to the sorry state of mainstream and sports journalism in America today? I remember a time when editors actually made there underlings write the facts about a story instead of opinions, speculation and conjecture.
Agree...
I've actually gotten to the point - because of the mockery and hypocrisy of these multi million dollar coaches and administrators - were I am perfectly fine with the players simply being paid at free market rates. If every other "sombitch" is looking to make a buck, or two, or a few million out of this whole charade - cut the boys in for a (big) piece of the action.
It would at least make it less hypocritical.
I've actually gotten to the point - because of the mockery and hypocrisy of these multi million dollar coaches and administrators - were I am perfectly fine with the players simply being paid at free market rates. If every other "sombitch" is looking to make a buck, or two, or a few million out of this whole charade - cut the boys in for a (big) piece of the action.
It would at least make it less hypocritical.
Here's how I'd fix college sports
I'd create an A league were the teams share revenues 100% except for gate recipes, parking, food, licensing for shirts (etc.). All TV revenue would be shared 100%. Teams in the A league would be like Barclays Premier Soccer League. You'd have to play your way in or out.
I'd get rid of the conferences, for all intents and purposes. No need to have them anymore.
I'd limit coaches salary. No reason why this cannot be done. I'd put a cap on the total salary a college can pay their staff. And, there would be suspensions, including lifetime suspensions, for coaches, AD's and boosters for high crimes.
I'd feather these in over a ten year period to mitigate the negative impact of change and to roll off TV contracts.
Kids would get full five year scholarships, no matter what. They'd also have a poll of money to pay for health insurance, targeted toward injuries suffered while playing. This is now, pretty simple, with Obamacare. Kids can transfer, as long as their team is OK with it, without penalty, but their guaranteed 4/5 year 'ship is no longer guaranteed.
I'd create an A league were the teams share revenues 100% except for gate recipes, parking, food, licensing for shirts (etc.). All TV revenue would be shared 100%. Teams in the A league would be like Barclays Premier Soccer League. You'd have to play your way in or out.
I'd get rid of the conferences, for all intents and purposes. No need to have them anymore.
I'd limit coaches salary. No reason why this cannot be done. I'd put a cap on the total salary a college can pay their staff. And, there would be suspensions, including lifetime suspensions, for coaches, AD's and boosters for high crimes.
I'd feather these in over a ten year period to mitigate the negative impact of change and to roll off TV contracts.
Kids would get full five year scholarships, no matter what. They'd also have a poll of money to pay for health insurance, targeted toward injuries suffered while playing. This is now, pretty simple, with Obamacare. Kids can transfer, as long as their team is OK with it, without penalty, but their guaranteed 4/5 year 'ship is no longer guaranteed.
The only way to fix college sports is to take the money out of it.
It's just not going to happen.
In situations like this, college sports, money is like time, it has a direction: you drop an egg and it breaks when it hits the floor. The broken egg won't gather itself together on the floor and and fly upward to your hand. Same thing with money in college sports, there's only one direction it can flow.
This post was edited on 3/23 1:11 PM by LionJim
It's just not going to happen.
In situations like this, college sports, money is like time, it has a direction: you drop an egg and it breaks when it hits the floor. The broken egg won't gather itself together on the floor and and fly upward to your hand. Same thing with money in college sports, there's only one direction it can flow.
This post was edited on 3/23 1:11 PM by LionJim
agree...or, at least
make the incentive to win, revenue wise, less than the bad PR one would get from having gotten caught cheating or ripping off a kid. Level the playing field and put the revenue into an equally shared pot. Then, a team like PSU, tOSU or Michigan simply makes money off the the 'brand' instead of directly through the revenue stream. If you think about it, this was the program under Paterno. He and his staff weren't paid a ton, but still made great money. The kids weren't corrupted. They got a good education, for the most part, with few exceptions. it was how it was supposed to be. However, especially after the large TV contracts came about (due, in part, to Cable and Interent) the system got corrupted.
make the incentive to win, revenue wise, less than the bad PR one would get from having gotten caught cheating or ripping off a kid. Level the playing field and put the revenue into an equally shared pot. Then, a team like PSU, tOSU or Michigan simply makes money off the the 'brand' instead of directly through the revenue stream. If you think about it, this was the program under Paterno. He and his staff weren't paid a ton, but still made great money. The kids weren't corrupted. They got a good education, for the most part, with few exceptions. it was how it was supposed to be. However, especially after the large TV contracts came about (due, in part, to Cable and Interent) the system got corrupted.
Re: Here's how I'd fix college sports
Really quite simple. Put the Student back in the primary position. Athelete is secondary for all. Those who wish to accept a scholarship do so with the uderstanding they will have their education paid for so long as they remain scholastically eligible. Real courses, real grades. Any cheaters either player, coach, administrator, booster, alum to be prosecuted to the fullest. No exceptions for any sport.
No college athelete should be paid beyond what it takes to get a 4 year degree in a 'real' major. A stipend for expenses makes sense - for all student/atheletes in all sports. Ms jenkins doesn't seem to realize that colleges exist for students, the atheletics are an extra.
Really quite simple. Put the Student back in the primary position. Athelete is secondary for all. Those who wish to accept a scholarship do so with the uderstanding they will have their education paid for so long as they remain scholastically eligible. Real courses, real grades. Any cheaters either player, coach, administrator, booster, alum to be prosecuted to the fullest. No exceptions for any sport.
No college athelete should be paid beyond what it takes to get a 4 year degree in a 'real' major. A stipend for expenses makes sense - for all student/atheletes in all sports. Ms jenkins doesn't seem to realize that colleges exist for students, the atheletics are an extra.
you open up the kids being paid by outside sources
which will bring back the very same corruption we see now. The biggest problem, and why the NCAA book to athletes is ~ 300 pages, is the control of pay in its various forms. Example: tOSU giving the kids "gold pants" which they simply sell or barter for other goods and services. They become, ostensibly, pros. Then, how do you define a "real major?" Music? Elementary Education? Black history? If a kid wants to become a lawyer, history is a very legit undergrad degree.
But I do agree, in general, and you make a great point; quit putting false restrictions on the kids. Give them the ability to choose.
One of the biggest problems, recently, is programs like USC and Alabama that have loaded up on 5 star talent because they are sold on winning the MNC and a ticket to the NFL. You can't all play so lots of them sit. Let those sitting xfer without restrictions. We see guys being cut in the NFL that go on to become all pro in anther program.
which will bring back the very same corruption we see now. The biggest problem, and why the NCAA book to athletes is ~ 300 pages, is the control of pay in its various forms. Example: tOSU giving the kids "gold pants" which they simply sell or barter for other goods and services. They become, ostensibly, pros. Then, how do you define a "real major?" Music? Elementary Education? Black history? If a kid wants to become a lawyer, history is a very legit undergrad degree.
But I do agree, in general, and you make a great point; quit putting false restrictions on the kids. Give them the ability to choose.
One of the biggest problems, recently, is programs like USC and Alabama that have loaded up on 5 star talent because they are sold on winning the MNC and a ticket to the NFL. You can't all play so lots of them sit. Let those sitting xfer without restrictions. We see guys being cut in the NFL that go on to become all pro in anther program.
No to #3 and #5
1. Freshmen ineligible - Agree. Limits one and done and gives kids to get a leg up on academics.
2. Scholarships for 5 years - Mostly agree. It sucks if a kid gets his scholarship revoked.
3. Allow athletes to receive endorsement revenue - No! That's a horrible slippery slope that will take focus away from academics.
4. Fold athletics into academics - Unsure. Isn't there oversight already?
5. Give academic credit for athletics - No! I'm OK with free physical education credits but that's it. Kids need credits that satisfy a legitimate degree program. Football is not a legitimate degree program.
1. Freshmen ineligible - Agree. Limits one and done and gives kids to get a leg up on academics.
2. Scholarships for 5 years - Mostly agree. It sucks if a kid gets his scholarship revoked.
3. Allow athletes to receive endorsement revenue - No! That's a horrible slippery slope that will take focus away from academics.
4. Fold athletics into academics - Unsure. Isn't there oversight already?
5. Give academic credit for athletics - No! I'm OK with free physical education credits but that's it. Kids need credits that satisfy a legitimate degree program. Football is not a legitimate degree program.
Got it...but, in 1984, the supreme court gave them antitrust
protection, for all intents and purposes, relative to TV rights in 1984. That is where I was confused.
The NCAA versus the Board of Regents University of Oklahoma.
protection, for all intents and purposes, relative to TV rights in 1984. That is where I was confused.
The NCAA versus the Board of Regents University of Oklahoma.
No, you have it backward.
In the case of NCAA v. Oklahoma and Georgia, the Court ruled that the NCAA's monopolization of TV rights for college football games violated anti-trust laws. That's why the NCAA has no control whatever over the televising of college football contests.
In the case of NCAA v. Oklahoma and Georgia, the Court ruled that the NCAA's monopolization of TV rights for college football games violated anti-trust laws. That's why the NCAA has no control whatever over the televising of college football contests.
Re: No, you have it backward.
I'll yield to your greater understanding of the issue. However, if you can limit the payment to kids playing the game, it makes sense that you could find a way to limit what their coaches make too (or visa versa).
I'll yield to your greater understanding of the issue. However, if you can limit the payment to kids playing the game, it makes sense that you could find a way to limit what their coaches make too (or visa versa).
Current legal standard is that players are students
and coaches are employees.The NCAA did not "find a way" to limit player compensation. They simply banked on the players being classified as students by the courts. To date, no one has been able to successfully challenge it, though there are lawsuits afoot to do exactly that.
and coaches are employees.The NCAA did not "find a way" to limit player compensation. They simply banked on the players being classified as students by the courts. To date, no one has been able to successfully challenge it, though there are lawsuits afoot to do exactly that.
got it...but that was in 1984
which was before video games, cable and internet. Before the NCAA was a multi-billion dollar company made off of the backs of 18-22 year olds who were getting a lousy education while being set up for brain damage.
which was before video games, cable and internet. Before the NCAA was a multi-billion dollar company made off of the backs of 18-22 year olds who were getting a lousy education while being set up for brain damage.
Re: No to #3 and #5
Make scholarships four year scholarships and it's tied up for four years even if the kid goes pro. That way coaches would have to recruit kids that plan on getting a degree. What experts don't realize is that fans are fans of the school, not the individual players for the most part. Even if the quality of players drop, the fans will still support the school especially if it's a level playing field for all teams. This way if a coach wants to sign a one as done kid, that's fine but he loses that scholarship for four years. Like a poster said earlier in the thread, they need to put the C back in NCAA.
Make scholarships four year scholarships and it's tied up for four years even if the kid goes pro. That way coaches would have to recruit kids that plan on getting a degree. What experts don't realize is that fans are fans of the school, not the individual players for the most part. Even if the quality of players drop, the fans will still support the school especially if it's a level playing field for all teams. This way if a coach wants to sign a one as done kid, that's fine but he loses that scholarship for four years. Like a poster said earlier in the thread, they need to put the C back in NCAA.
