2019 Non-UND FCS Thread

[Mama Sue]

This is NOT a one college, one sport, one player question. The focus is much broader... much. There are too many implications to consider...things get way out of hand.

Sadly, you seem to see this from a very narrow perspective. Your player knew the rules when he signed up. He can do the camp after he graduates. Shouldn’t he be focused on the team and his S & C and not on promoting himself to adoring youth all summer long?

What is wrong is the rather selfish “I want” mentality. I just would not support this type of sponsorships for college athletes. That is my opinion, that’s all.

[Bison06]

So a 4th year biology student at UND can take the knowledge that UND provided and teach a summer biology camp for an appropriate wage, but a UND football player doing the equivalent with the skills and knowledge they have will result in a revocation of their scholarship and you think that’s “selfish”? 

[bison73]

3 hours ago, Mama Sue said:

This is NOT a one college, one sport, one player question. The focus is much broader... much. There are too many implications to consider...things get way out of hand.

Sadly, you seem to see this from a very narrow perspective. Your player knew the rules when he signed up. He can do the camp after he graduates. Shouldn’t he be focused on the team and his S & C and not on promoting himself to adoring youth all summer long?

What is wrong is the rather selfish “I want” mentality. I just would not support this type of sponsorships for college athletes. That is my opinion, that’s all.

What you dont understand is it has nothing to do with the rules he signed up under as the rules have changed. This is in play. The NCAA just has to figure out how to manage it.

 

Promoting himself to adoring youth??????

[NoiseInsideMyHead]

Arguably, the rules were never about fairness or equity, but were put in place to prevent runaway corruption or worse. High-profile sanctions suggest that the system can work, though we can certainly debate specific outcomes and enforcement levels. Most of the anecdotal knowledge about under-the-table deals for star athletes is either fantasy, urban legend, or incapable of proof under current compliance practices. A zero-tolerance model seems harsh, but it’s perhaps preferable to one that now forces schools to try and decipher between bona fide commercial activity and sham transactions.

On the plus side, I think that the increase in income tax collections for Uncle Sam will help the economy. This is a 2-way street, and Joe QB may end up regretting the sunlight on his cozy deals with boosters and used car lots.

[Mama Sue]

Well said!

[Bison06]

The ideal scenario is both basketball and football having a viable alternative to the NCAA as a route to the pros. If that existed  then none of this would be an issue. Of course the NCAA would lobby very hard against that as it would be a death blow for them. 
Having an alternative league allows all parties to get exactly what they want. Member institutions can keep their rules and players who have zero interest in pretending to be students for 2-3 years can get paid while preparing for their professional career.

[JohnboyND7]

2 hours ago, Bison06 said:

The ideal scenario is both basketball and football having a viable alternative to the NCAA as a route to the pros. If that existed  then none of this would be an issue. Of course the NCAA would lobby very hard against that as it would be a death blow for them. 
Having an alternative league allows all parties to get exactly what they want. Member institutions can keep their rules and players who have zero interest in pretending to be students for 2-3 years can get paid while preparing for their professional career.

Basketball does have a viable alternative and has for decades. It's called overseas leagues. 

I don't see how minor league basketball or football would negatively impact college sports. I am not sure minor leagues are financially viable anyway. 

[Bison06]

31 minutes ago, JohnboyND7 said:

Basketball does have a viable alternative and has for decades. It's called overseas leagues. 

I don't see how minor league basketball or football would negatively impact college sports. I am not sure minor leagues are financially viable anyway. 

Europe isn’t viable for most American high schoolers. Additionally, the fact that the European pro leagues have this age thing figured out only further shows how the NCAA and NBA have colluded with this one and done rule to force college on kids.

As far as how these leagues would affect the colleges. Of course I’d much of the top talent played in this proposed league, tv contracts and advertising dollars would go to these leagues too and that would hurt the NCAA.

[Siouxphan27]

20 hours ago, Mama Sue said:

Shakespeare: Me thinks she doth protest too much!

yup, black market for sure

siouxphan: do you see multiple juice sponsorships in the future???

I suppose it’s possible schools like ndsu would have multiple opportunities for student athletes to make some money doing advertisements/testimonials for leading juice brands. 

 I think the whole idea being discussed is a slippery slope that’s going to be impossible to regulate.  Wealthy donors are just going to end up paying athletes regardless of any real or perceived value they might get out of their likeness.  

Eventually the NCAA will put a cap on how much each athlete can receive,  and  it will basically become an FCOA amount provided from the private sector.  The schools with large alumni backing will organize and provide the max donation for every athlete on the team.   The competitive gap between the haves and have nots universities will continue to widen. 

[bison73]

7 hours ago, NoiseInsideMyHead said:

Arguably, the rules were never about fairness or equity, but were put in place to prevent runaway corruption or worse. High-profile sanctions suggest that the system can work, though we can certainly debate specific outcomes and enforcement levels. Most of the anecdotal knowledge about under-the-table deals for star athletes is either fantasy, urban legend, or incapable of proof under current compliance practices. A zero-tolerance model seems harsh, but it’s perhaps preferable to one that now forces schools to try and decipher between bona fide commercial activity and sham transactions.

On the plus side, I think that the increase in income tax collections for Uncle Sam will help the economy. This is a 2-way street, and Joe QB may end up regretting the sunlight on his cozy deals with boosters and used car lots.

Youre kidding??? Right???? View the documentary on Marques Dupree. Read the report on Reggie Bush and a host of others. Plus its not just the big names who get paid.The first scandal that I ever heard about was Illinois and the coach was Pete Elliot. That goes back to the 60s.  There is also documentary proof of players getting paid to play football and not having to attend class that goes way back to the beginning of football. I also have personal knowledge of players who got paid while I was at Iowa. Fantasy????

 

 

[The Sicatoka]

You're 18 and you just graduated HS and want to play a "big 4" pro sport. 

Baseball: the extensive minor league system or the NCAA
Hockey: the CHL (Canadian major junior) or the NCAA

Football: the NCAA
Basketball: the NCAA

I get a little cranky when I think about the NFL and NBA having a "free to them" minor league system. 

[NoiseInsideMyHead]

1 hour ago, bison73 said:

Youre kidding??? Right???? View the documentary on Marques Dupree. Read the report on Reggie Bush and a host of others. Plus its not just the big names who get paid.The first scandal that I ever heard about was Illinois and the coach was Pete Elliot. That goes back to the 60s.  There is also documentary proof of players getting paid to play football and not having to attend class that goes way back to the beginning of football. I also have personal knowledge of players who got paid while I was at Iowa. Fantasy????

 

 

And how much did you report to compliance? How much did compliance investigate? Are you suggesting the schools were complicit? That the NCAA was arbitrary or selective in enforcement? The fact that it happened does not mean there was evidence that could be proven up. Or that more than a fraction was ever reported via the proper channels.

You’re generous with hyperbole, but stingy with analysis.

[bison73]

30 minutes ago, NoiseInsideMyHead said:

And how much did you report to compliance? How much did compliance investigate? Are you suggesting the schools were complicit? That the NCAA was arbitrary or selective in enforcement? The fact that it happened does not mean there was evidence that could be proven up. Or that more than a fraction was ever reported via the proper channels.

You’re generous with hyperbole, but stingy with analysis.

Analysis????? Dont need it when these athletes after the fact admit to it. Facts matter. Youre avoiding it.

Compliance office in the early 70s?  LOL LOL

[Mama Sue]

Point is... with all of your statements it seems even more obvious that many issues will arise... some we can’t even think of yet.

I don’t buy this will improve/regulate sponsorships. Didn’t they make that argument with prohibition? And they had so, so many agents to monitor compliance.

Don’t do anything... this too shall pass.

[NoiseInsideMyHead]

28 minutes ago, bison73 said:

Analysis????? Dont need it when these athletes after the fact admit to it. Facts matter. Youre avoiding it.

Compliance office in the early 70s?  LOL LOL

Your rants are all over the map. I specifically addressed "current practices" and you want to talk about the 60s and 70s.

Let's agree that compliance and enforcement were lax 30-40 years ago.  Does that alone justify letting athletes get paid for name and likeness now?  What about current practices is deficient?  Are you suggesting that it's still the wild west?  How many pay-to-play scandals since, say, SMU have been provable but ignored, or botched, by the NCAA?

Even more to the point of my statement, do you feel that the soon-to-be reality of letting schools try to sort out which payments are legit is preferable to the zero tolerance model that we're about to wind down?

[bison73]

22 minutes ago, NoiseInsideMyHead said:

Your rants are all over the map. I specifically addressed "current practices" and you want to talk about the 60s and 70s.

Let's agree that compliance and enforcement were lax 30-40 years ago.  Does that alone justify letting athletes get paid for name and likeness now?  What about current practices is deficient?  Are you suggesting that it's still the wild west?  How many pay-to-play scandals since, say, SMU have been provable but ignored, or botched, by the NCAA?

Even more to the point of my statement, do you feel that the soon-to-be reality of letting schools try to sort out which payments are legit is preferable to the zero tolerance model that we're about to wind down?

Let me say this. The NCAA sucks and has always sucked in my collective memory.  They have guidelines-rules-laws that they arbitrarily enforce. Did I say they suck?

My stance on this issue varies as I can see the rabbit hole this can go down. But I also have seen the ineptness of the NCAA at work except when it comes to making money off the backs

of the athletes that they hold rule over.

So in fact I like it and dont like it. But I understand it if that helps.

Did I say the NCAA sucks?

[geaux_sioux]

6 hours ago, bison73 said:

Youre kidding??? Right???? View the documentary on Marques Dupree. Read the report on Reggie Bush and a host of others. Plus its not just the big names who get paid.The first scandal that I ever heard about was Illinois and the coach was Pete Elliot. That goes back to the 60s.  There is also documentary proof of players getting paid to play football and not having to attend class that goes way back to the beginning of football. I also have personal knowledge of players who got paid while I was at Iowa. Fantasy????

 

 

My favorite is the Grand A&M that they gave to Eric Dickerson.

[bison73]

2 hours ago, geaux_sioux said:

My favorite is the Grand A&M that they gave to Eric Dickerson.

When I was at Iowa one player drove a brand new Riviera  and another a new Toranado. Not to mention they both had hand stiched boots and the best clothes. The one player was from Ohio. When we played OSU I didnt need my two tickets as my parents couldnt make it so I gave my tickets to him. When I say gave I mean gave. I never thought of charging a teammate for tickets that I wouldnt be using. After the game his relative came over and gave me an envelope. When I said I didnt want anything the player told me YOU TAKE THE MONEY.  I said ok.

When I got home there was more money than face value in that envelope. I guess he appreciated the tickets.

[bison73]

5 hours ago, Mama Sue said:

Point is... with all of your statements it seems even more obvious that many issues will arise... some we can’t even think of yet.

I don’t buy this will improve/regulate sponsorships. Didn’t they make that argument with prohibition? And they had so, so many agents to monitor compliance.

Don’t do anything... this too shall pass.

You need to read up on prohibition. Many underlying and back room politics and deals and how they used a different tact-false flag to get it done.

And yes this is going to open up a lot of cans of worms. Huge rabbit hole.

This will not pass.  Its law.

[MIBT]

14 hours ago, Bison06 said:

The ideal scenario is both basketball and football having a viable alternative to the NCAA as a route to the pros. If that existed  then none of this would be an issue. Of course the NCAA would lobby very hard against that as it would be a death blow for them. 
Having an alternative league allows all parties to get exactly what they want. Member institutions can keep their rules and players who have zero interest in pretending to be students for 2-3 years can get paid while preparing for their professional career.

I don't believe the NCAA would be against alternative leagues for those who don't really want to be in school. Individual schools may be opposed, but the NCAA is really just about championships and compliance. Those will exist even if there are minor league options available. They make no money off FBS football so there would be no impact there. Even if 100 basketball players decide to go minor league rather than NCAA that's only one player for every 3 D1 team. It may reduce the overall revenue to NCAA from reduced media money, but the bigger impact would be to the school/conference payouts and not the NCAA has a whole.

23 hours ago, Bison06 said:

So a 4th year biology student at UND can take the knowledge that UND provided and teach a summer biology camp for an appropriate wage, but a UND football player doing the equivalent with the skills and knowledge they have will result in a revocation of their scholarship and you think that’s “selfish”? 

This is a recruitment issue. Once unethical recruiting comes to biology students then it becomes an issue. It's apples and oranges.

On 1/17/2020 at 10:18 PM, Mama Sue said:

This is NOT a one college, one sport, one player question. The focus is much broader... much. There are too many implications to consider...things get way out of hand.

Sadly, you seem to see this from a very narrow perspective. Your player knew the rules when he signed up. He can do the camp after he graduates. Shouldn’t he be focused on the team and his S & C and not on promoting himself to adoring youth all summer long?

What is wrong is the rather selfish “I want” mentality. I just would not support this type of sponsorships for college athletes. That is my opinion, that’s all.

I agree!

On 1/17/2020 at 8:10 PM, Bison06 said:

Answer this direct question:

If James Johanneson wanted to put on a running back camp in Fargo over the summer for Fargo South High School using his name and making money for his personal time, what is your argument for why that is bad?

See my recruiting comment above in regards to the biology student. If this was only limited to Billy paying $50 to attend this one day camp it would be less of an issue. But Johnny DeepPockets would "sponsor" 20 kids to attend the camp to a tune of $5000 each.

On 1/17/2020 at 10:04 AM, Bison06 said:

I agree and am aware of the school's budgets. Which is why I'm not advocating for these funds to be paid from the university in the form of a stipend or salary to the players. I'm simply advocating for the players to be allowed to profit from their own likeness and name on their own if they choose to do so.

To give the NCAA a pass on your second paragraph, implies that the NCAA and the pro leagues don't collaborate to create mutually beneficial rules, which happens constantly. Who does it help to have the "one and done rule" in college basketball? Well, the NBA gets to let top players develop one more year before they need to invest and they get to further vet them against a higher level of competition. The NCAA benefits from having the top talent not skip over them and go straight to the NBA. The only party it doesn't benefit in the slightest is the athlete. The NCAA and NBA have created a captive situation and are in effect forcing these athletes to go to college against their will in most cases. Risking further injury before getting paid.

Of course, there would need to be proper oversight, I'm not advocating for the wild west. But say Joe Burrow had a year of eligibility left and planned to play next year. If he wanted to run the Joe Burrow QB camp for highschool kids in Baton Rouge, why shouldn't he be able to do that?

The NBA one-and-done is entirely an NBA rule. I know the NCAA isn't a big fan, but there isn't much they can do about it. They would prefer the players who don't want to go to school to go directly professional (either through existing professional leagues or for the NBA to eliminate their draft rule). NCAA basketball and specifically the tournament was just as popular when high school graduates could go directly to the NBA than it was before and after. It didn't hurt the NCAA at all.

[Bison06]

7 hours ago, MIBT said:

I don't believe the NCAA would be against alternative leagues for those who don't really want to be in school. Individual schools may be opposed, but the NCAA is really just about championships and compliance. Those will exist even if there are minor league options available. They make no money off FBS football so there would be no impact there. Even if 100 basketball players decide to go minor league rather than NCAA that's only one player for every 3 D1 team. It may reduce the overall revenue to NCAA from reduced media money, but the bigger impact would be to the school/conference payouts and not the NCAA has a whole.

This is a recruitment issue. Once unethical recruiting comes to biology students then it becomes an issue. It's apples and oranges.

I agree!

See my recruiting comment above in regards to the biology student. If this was only limited to Billy paying $50 to attend this one day camp it would be less of an issue. But Johnny DeepPockets would "sponsor" 20 kids to attend the camp to a tune of $5000 each.

The NBA one-and-done is entirely an NBA rule. I know the NCAA isn't a big fan, but there isn't much they can do about it. They would prefer the players who don't want to go to school to go directly professional (either through existing professional leagues or for the NBA to eliminate their draft rule). NCAA basketball and specifically the tournament was just as popular when high school graduates could go directly to the NBA than it was before and after. It didn't hurt the NCAA at all.

Seems like what started as an attempt to root out unethical recruiting practices has turned into an overreach that disproportionately affects the athletes. Probably why we’ve seen so many lawsuits over this. Let’s find a middle ground that doesn’t eliminate the athletes ability to have ownership over their own face.

[MIBT]

3 hours ago, Bison06 said:

Seems like what started as an attempt to root out unethical recruiting practices has turned into an overreach that disproportionately affects the athletes. Probably why we’ve seen so many lawsuits over this. Let’s find a middle ground that doesn’t eliminate the athletes ability to have ownership over their own face.

If fans and boosters could be trusted this wouldn't be an issue. But they can't and opening this up will only make it worse. The best policy is to try to keep them away as much as possible. The NCAA organization only wants to be a policy making and championship organization but they keep getting drug into these things for 1% of their total student athlete population. I've always said one of the worst things that happened to them was the rise in popularity and thus huge sums of money for the NCAA basketball tournament. It's great because it helps pay for so many other sports. But it's created so many more issues because of the amount of money.

D1 basketball and football players are given a free education plus many other perks and they are given a very high visibility platform to show their ability. There are 460,000 student athletes associated with all sports in the NCAA. If we assume every D1 team (252 FBS and FCS teams) has 85 players that's over 21k. Spread them out over 5 years and there are over 4000 per entry year. There are approximately 325 drafted each year about that many make an NFL roster. I know undrafted free agents make it too, but there are draft picks that don't make it so it wouldn't change the overall numbers much. Add in 5k D1 basketball players (347 teams times 15 spots) with only 60 draft picks each year (many of them never make a roster and some are from other countries). That's 26k athletes (6%) with 5k exiting each year and maybe 400 (8%) of them making a professional roster. Does it make sense to change the rules for less than 1% of their participants?

If those 1% decided to never play NCAA sports the organization would be just fine. They need the NCAA so much more than the NCAA needs them. Who these athletes should be most upset with is the women's lacrosse players and the tennis player and D3 football players who ultimately benefit from the money they generate both at the NCAA and school level. The money they are generating is going to fund those programs.

[Sioux94]

21 hours ago, Siouxphan27 said:

I suppose it’s possible schools like ndsu would have multiple opportunities for student athletes to make some money doing advertisements/testimonials for leading juice brands. 

 I think the whole idea being discussed is a slippery slope that’s going to be impossible to regulate.  Wealthy donors are just going to end up paying athletes regardless of any real or perceived value they might get out of their likeness.  

Eventually the NCAA will put a cap on how much each athlete can receive,  and  it will basically become an FCOA amount provided from the private sector.  The schools with large alumni backing will organize and provide the max donation for every athlete on the team.   The competitive gap between the haves and have nots universities will continue to widen. 

1000% all of this post, totally agree...particular the end result of competitive gap widening significantly.

[Bison06]

1 hour ago, MIBT said:

If fans and boosters could be trusted this wouldn't be an issue. But they can't and opening this up will only make it worse. The best policy is to try to keep them away as much as possible. The NCAA organization only wants to be a policy making and championship organization but they keep getting drug into these things for 1% of their total student athlete population. I've always said one of the worst things that happened to them was the rise in popularity and thus huge sums of money for the NCAA basketball tournament. It's great because it helps pay for so many other sports. But it's created so many more issues because of the amount of money.

D1 basketball and football players are given a free education plus many other perks and they are given a very high visibility platform to show their ability. There are 460,000 student athletes associated with all sports in the NCAA. If we assume every D1 team (252 FBS and FCS teams) has 85 players that's over 21k. Spread them out over 5 years and there are over 4000 per entry year. There are approximately 325 drafted each year about that many make an NFL roster. I know undrafted free agents make it too, but there are draft picks that don't make it so it wouldn't change the overall numbers much. Add in 5k D1 basketball players (347 teams times 15 spots) with only 60 draft picks each year (many of them never make a roster and some are from other countries). That's 26k athletes (6%) with 5k exiting each year and maybe 400 (8%) of them making a professional roster. Does it make sense to change the rules for less than 1% of their participants?

If those 1% decided to never play NCAA sports the organization would be just fine. They need the NCAA so much more than the NCAA needs them. Who these athletes should be most upset with is the women's lacrosse players and the tennis player and D3 football players who ultimately benefit from the money they generate both at the NCAA and school level. The money they are generating is going to fund those programs.

This isn’t an issue that affects 1% as you say, in fact, I would argue in affects the “little guys” much more than the guys who will/could eventually play professionally. The athlete in partial scholarship at a DII school is affected much more by these rules.

i agree with pretty well everything you’ve said about the challenges that would arise if they changed the rules, we just disagree about how bad things are now it seems.

[Mama Sue]

1 hour ago, Sioux94 said:

1000% all of this post, totally agree...particular the end result of competitive gap widening significantly.

I also agree with Siouxphan’s post....