I don't think the NCAA will play nice with this. I could see them banning Cali schools from the tournament.

jc

not surprised seeing people mad about athletes being allowed to sign endorsement deals.

the same people who talk about the free market don't want kids to make money off of their own talent. odd.

Arch.

That's kind of where I'm at.

I don't think it's fair that colleges make what they do off of the students talent and name.

But I feel like something like this has to implemented very carefully. As with all things, good and bad, there will be unintended consequences. You just hope this is thought through very carefully.

Dave posted the link regarding Ohio.

In theory this sounds like a good idea.

When you turn on the game and see the camera pan the very large stadium packed to the brim with screaming fans.....seems the QB (and everyone) should get paid. Since they are certainly making money off of his back.

But it also feels like this is going to corrupt and change college sports.

So, I dunno.

Don't get me wrong Pit, the current system blows and is completely unfair to the athletes who put in the work..

but this will go sideways, there will be unintended consequences that negatively impact college sports.. we just aren't 100% sure what they are yet.

The free (or lower) cost education & room and board, free clothing, free tutoring, stipends, and high paying cushy jobs scholarship athletes already get aren't enough?

My 2 cents - these kids and their parents are making a choice to have the kid play a sport and go to school for low/no cost. The alternate choice is to pay regular prices like the rest of us. Sure, football and basketball are the moneymakers (normally), but those programs pay for the existence of most, if not all of the other sports at the school. Start paying kids and you'll see the number of sports drop at every school, down to zero in some cases. And where does it stop - pay them and some kids will want more, others will still break the rules. Nobody is forcing you to play sports - if you choose to, take your free education and shut up

The free (or lower) cost education & room and board, free clothing, free tutoring, stipends, and high paying cushy jobs scholarship athletes already get aren't enough?

My 2 cents - these kids and their parents are making a choice to have the kid play a sport and go to school for low/no cost. The alternate choice is to pay regular prices like the rest of us. Sure, football and basketball are the moneymakers (normally), but those programs pay for the existence of most, if not all of the other sports at the school. Start paying kids and you'll see the number of sports drop at every school, down to zero in some cases. And where does it stop - pay them and some kids will want more, others will still break the rules. Nobody is forcing you to play sports - if you choose to, take your free education and shut up

Seems like you didn't read the main article. No school will be paying a dime for the athletes. The money the school brings in will still go to the other low generating sports. The students will be free to get money outside the university, selling their likeness as they see fit.

Seems like you didn't read the main article. No school will be paying a dime for the athletes. The money the school brings in will still go to the other low generating sports. The students will be free to get money outside the university, selling their likeness as they see fit.

I'll admit, I didn't read it that way. My bad.





Next question from me would be: Since SOME people on here gripe about Baker, as an NFL athlete now, doing commercials and appearances for money, will that same attitude from SOME on here continue? I.E. Say the 'stud' qb from whatever California school does ads, gets perks, etc........then he has a bad game or 2.....will people gripe about that qb spending too much time with the self promotion?

Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski backs California's Fair Pay to Play law

Oct 8, 2019

David M. HaleESPN Staff Writer



CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski is the latest big name to offer support for the California Fair Pay to Play law that will allow college athletes to profit off their name, image and likeness.

Krzyzewski provided a prepared statement at the ACC's 2019 Operation Basketball preseason event on Tuesday, saying he supported the law and encouraged the NCAA to adopt a uniform rule.


"I don't -- and won't -- pretend to understand all the complexities of such a change," Krzyzewski said in the statement. "However, it is a sign of the times that we in college athletics must continually adapt, albeit in a sensible manner.

"While we have made significant progress in recent years, we have not always responded to the needs and rights of our players swiftly, and frankly, we're playing catch-up after years of stagnant rules. I hope and trust that not only will there be a plan to put the student-athletes' best interests at the forefront, but that we'll also have a firm plan for implementation at the national level."

While Krzyzewski's comments on the specific bill in California are new, his support for improvements in player compensation echoes statements he's made in past years, including throughout last season's high-profile campaign with Zion Williamson.

ACC commissioner John Swofford noted that times have changed, but that he fears potential issues with the law.

"We need to modernize it and take a look at every angle that benefits our student-athletes," Swofford said. "We need to be careful not to unintentionally undo the fundamental aspects of [the collegiate model]."

Several other ACC coaches Tuesday offered commentary similar to that of Krzyzewski, including Notre Dame's Mike Brey, the president of the National Association of Basketball Coaches, and Louisville's Chris Mack, who said he's changed his perspective on the issue in recent years.

"Four or five years ago I might've sung a different tune," Mack said, "but a lot has changed. The money, the TV contracts, every conference has its own network now. I don't know what it looks like. I'm not an economist. And I think the NCAA has gotten a bad rap for not doing anything for student-athletes. But I am on the side that thinks student-athletes should be able to capitalize on their name, image and likeness."

California's law won't take effect until 2023; however, several other states are pursuing legislation on a more advanced timeline. That, Mack said, is more concerning than the overall rules.

"I just hope that whatever happens isn't ramrodded down the NCAA's throat," he said. "I hope politicians don't drive it so hard and fast that there are unintended consequences without a lot of thought going into it."

Brey said that, while the overall proposal is likely a step in the right direction, he believes the overall value of name, image and likeness rights for most athletes will not be significant.

"I think it's much ado about nothing right now," Brey said. "What's really the marketability of some of these guys? How many jerseys are they really going to sell? It's a great panic thing right now. I just think we can work this out and the market's not going to be as deep for everybody as we think."


https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basket...ir-pay-play-law

I believe that this kind of thing would pull top players to the schools in the biggest markets, so they could get the biggest endorsement deals. (local and other)

I wonder how the OL, who toil in obscurity, will feel about blocking for free, (or almost free) for a QB who is making millions?

Seems like you didn't read the main article. No school will be paying a dime for the athletes. The money the school brings in will still go to the other low generating sports. The students will be free to get money outside the university, selling their likeness as they see fit.

Let me guess. You are white? You were raised in a middle class suburban family? You have no athletic talent? You think it's okay for baseball players to sign out of high school? You think hockey and baseball fights are cool. You think NBA and NFL fights are the acts of thugs?

Seems like you didn't read the main article. No school will be paying a dime for the athletes. The money the school brings in will still go to the other low generating sports. The students will be free to get money outside the university, selling their likeness as they see fit.

Are Universities Exploiting Black Male Athletes in Order to Raise Revenues?
A new study suggests the answer is yes.

James McWilliams
Updated:
Apr 20, 2018
Original:
Apr 19, 2018


A recent report put out by the University of Southern California's Race and Equity Center delivers some disturbing, if familiar, news about college athletic programs: They exist as mechanisms of exploitation, particularly of African-American men.

The meta-analysis, authored by Shaun Harper, an education professor at USC, concludes that "perhaps nowhere in higher education is the disenfranchisement of black male students more insidious than in college athletics." The takeaway, according to Harper, is the need for "more outrage and calls for accountability."

Of the 65 universities studied, black men comprised 2.4 percent of all undergraduates but 55 percent of football team members and 56 percent of basketball team members. Total student-athlete graduation rate was 69.3 percent over six years, and 76.3 percent for all students, but only 55.2 percent for black male student athletes. It's not as if these numbers are in the process of improving. At 40 percent of the universities black male athlete graduation rates have dropped by 6.5 percent in the last two years.


Given the formidable revenue generating force of college athletics—especially football and basketball—these figures strongly suggest racial exploitation, the kind whereby black men are used primarily for their athletic skills to generate income for universities that educate mostly white graduates for successful careers.

Harper is unusually direct about the underlying reason for the disparities his report documents. He places his findings in the deeper context of sports sociologist Harry Edward's 1984 claim that black student athletes:

[M]ust contend, of course, with the connotations and social reverberations of the traditional "dumb jock" caricature. But Black student-athletes are burdened also with the insidiously racist implications of the myth of "innate Black athletic superiority," and the more blatantly racist stereotype of the "dumb Negro" condemned by racial heritage to intellectual inferiority.

According to Harper, not much has changed when it comes to the prevalence and power of these stereotypes over the past 40 years. "This caricature and other racial stereotypes continue to plague Black male student-athletes at many predominantly white colleges and Universities," he writes, citing a slew of peer review studies to back his point.

If the disparity in graduation rates for black male student athletes is, as Harper indicates, rooted in long entrenched racial attitudes, then his call for a "sociocultural understanding of the status of Black male student athletes" is not only apt, but it may be the only way to get to the root of this problem in order to work our way out of it.

There are caveats to consider before concluding that racism is the cause of the comparative failure of black student athletes to graduate. Harper's numbers are culled from student-athletes who are on scholarship, and exclude those who may have walked on without financial assistance and possibly had a more successful educational experience.

While this limitation might overlook some black male students who graduated and played sports, the omission also indirectly strengthens Harper's argument in that it's a reminder that the figures that are included are based on students who had a high drop out rate despite being protected from the leading cause of dropping out: inability to pay tuition.

There can also be significant differences among the surveyed universities, gaps that might make the average numbers less meaningful. For example, Northwestern University graduates 88 percent of its black male student athletes; the corresponding figure for Louisiana State University is 34 percent.

The USC study has itself been the source of some criticism, mostly from conservative think tanks. Writing on the website of the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal, a right-leaning think tank, Shannon Watkins takes issue with Harper's sociocultural framing of racial attitudes as a leading cause of the lower graduation rates among black male athletes.

Instead, she argues that the black male students are, as reflected in their lower SAT scores and high school grades compared to the school's standard admissions requirements, relatively unprepared to deal with the academic challenges they have to face. She concludes:

[T]he problem is not that universities are intimidating or preventing black athletes from succeeding in college—it is that university officials compromise academic integrity for the sake of gaining star players.

It may be true that black male athletes granted scholarships to help their universities win games, sell merchandise, and generate media attention—that is, raise revenue—are academically unprepared next to the average student at the surveyed universities. But so what?

Watkins' argument does nothing to address Harper's fundamental assertion that deleterious racial attitudes undermine the potential of black undergraduates to succeed on white campuses. In fact, it only asks us to see the problem in a broader scope, taking careful note that the racism Harper identifies as holding down black athletes in the classroom did not begin the day they started college. When I pushed Watkins on this point, she said, "there could be [other] factors, but I don’t deal with the areas outside of higher education."

Watkins further insists "the correlation between academic success and standardized test scores, such as the SAT, cannot be ignored." But this claim, in light of Harper's study, is disingenuous—if not dangerous—when not also considered against the overwhelming evidence that a phalanx of disadvantages due to racial disparity (and racism) have led to lower SAT scores and poorer academic achievement.

The notion that the university should be some sort of meritocratic utopia ignores the deeper reason that the resort to meritocratic thinking on such an issue is especially noxious: Race matters. And it matters more than ever.

It is to Harper's credit that he joins contemporary thinkers such as Ta-Nehisi Coates and Bryan Stevenson in not only affirming this obvious reality but demonstrating that the racial legacy of slavery and Jim Crow continues to appear everywhere, even on the football field and basketball court of our favorite teams, where we rarely think about who's really winning and losing.

Tags
SportsCollege SportsAfrican AmericansStudent Athletesquick studiesHigher Education


James McWilliams is a Pacific Standard contributing writer, a professor at Texas State University, and the author of Just Food: Where Locavores Get It Wrong and How We Can Truly Eat Responsibly and a Revolution in Eating.

https://psmag.com/education/are-universi...-raise-revenues

Let me guess. You are white? You were raised in a middle class suburban family? You have no athletic talent? You think it's okay for baseball players to sign out of high school? You think hockey and baseball fights are cool. You think NBA and NFL fights are the acts of thugs?

You seem like a good dude and I sent you a brief PM. When I wrote my original post, I didn't realize that you hadn't read the article. That changes things a lot. I thought you were blowing off the information provided and just bashing dudes who need the money.

I hope we are cool moving forward.

Possibly.

The biggest issue I see with this, aside from it being dumb, is next we'll hear about the swimmers that don't get any money, or the divers, or the shooting team, or the lacrosse team members, etc, etc.

Next law will be "every athlete gets paid the same",

This could however impact recruiting. A Rivals top ranked player who otherwise might consider playing for OSU or Florida might decide to take the chance and sign with a California school with the hope they do get endorsement offers.

j/c:

This story is the kind that aggravates me. I think there is only one reason why the NCAA would not allow players to make money off of their own likeness, signing merchandise, etc. And that reason is pure greed by the NCAA!

They make a ton of money off of these kids w/out having to take away that right. Greedy ********!

DC, it makes them greedy because right now the NCAA is making money off of selling the player's likenesses, jerseys, etc.

I'm not sure how this makes the NCAA greedy. In theory, it costs the NCAA nothing to allow this to happen, it's private entities paying directly to players with no NCAA involvement.
In fact it may even increase revenue if it encourages high value players to stay in the NCAA another year or two before turning pro.

I'm not 100% sure what the NCAA's motivation is, effect on non-revenue sports? Balance of power between wealthy and non-wealthy teams/fan bases? I don't know.. Whatever it is, I'm not saying they are right or wrong, but I don't see how greed factors into it.

The NCAA wouldn't be paying anyone. Did you read the thread?

It would allow players to profit from the likeness and endorsement deals only.

I actually feel it will force other states to adopt the same policy. If states believe their teams will lose top athletes to other teams like in California, they won't wish to risk that. And how do you see paying a player for an endorsement the same thing as someone giving money to a team?

But I believe athletic boosters already do that.

Pretty sure he meant girls softball PLAYERS, not the whole team or the athletic department..

J/C

This just in....

NCAA Votes to allow players to earn money from likeness.

NCAA Football should be back on game consoles near you! lol