For all the money that's made off the athletes, there's also a ton of money invested in each of these guys. And it goes beyond room and board and tuition. There are countless numbers of coaches working on their development. Strenth and conditioning trainers. Medical care. Top notch facilities.

Also, while there are definitely inequalities out there now between college programs, if you start allowing college athletes to accept money/benefits or make money from endorsements/autographs, that disparity is going to balloon rapidly. The only way to make some sort of payment system to players work is to standardize or cap the amount each school can give all the players. Even if such a system is adopted, Manziel still would be outside of the rules.

So we can use this violation as a jumping off point for broader discussion on how athletes should be compensated, but regardless, Manziel blatantly, knowingly tried to break the rules and cover his tracks. He desreves a suspension if the NCAA can prove he did it. (And all of you who support him because he's fun to watch but call for Hairston's head are complete hypocrites.)

8/7/2013 12:17:20 PM

Glad I haven't called for his head then

It is definitely a difficult situation and I don't pretend to have the answers, I just see the NCAA as major sleezeballs in all of this and love to see them made out as fools. I like the idea of keeping things amateur but then don't allow the NCAA to make money off the players likeness. If they do then I think the player should get a cut of it, perhaps after they are done in college.

8/7/2013 12:22:29 PM

"amateurism" is a myth, especially the kind of "amateurism" the NCAA clings to

did the Olympics go to shit when they started allowing their athletes to make money off of endorsements?

8/7/2013 12:25:45 PM

again, it's not a perfect system, and i'll reiterate that it's a shame that people make a lot of money off the athletes...

andthe main purpose of the olympics is athletic competition. the main purpose of college is academics.

8/7/2013 12:30:00 PM

^, ^^ Countries don't (routinely) recruit players. It's apples to oranges.

I think players should be compensated in some form. But I like the parity of college sports and though there is definitely widespread skirting of the rules, completely eliminiating the amateur aspect and turning college sports into a mini pro league would not be a good thing.

If you want a system where free market rules apply for college sports, be prepared to see the same 5-10 programs winning everything. No more Boise States, Butlers. You're going to end up with Ohio State, Texas, Michigan, UNC, etc etc being able to outspend others for talent.

8/7/2013 12:33:39 PM

I would like to see some sort of system where players are allowed to accept money from outside entities after they are already in school.

If Joe Schmoe wants to give a kid 7500 to sign autographs then he should be allowed to. If some guy wants to trade tattoos for game worn items then let him. If some agent wants to front a guy a car in hopes that he will sign with the guy then let him.

However, no money should ever come from the school either directly or through "other means" other than the things that are normally provided like tuition and room and board etc. No boosters or people who donate to the athletic program should be allowed to funnel money to them either. Then the NCAA just needs to police that and if a school is found to be doing it they need to be punished harshly.

This gives athletes a chance to make money off their talents while in school and will at least limit I think anyone gaining a super unfair advantage. Bigger name schools will give more exposure and more opportunities to make cash but guys already goto those schools for the better chance at the NFL and such so it shouldnt tip the scales too much.

8/7/2013 1:06:01 PM

These poor kids

8/7/2013 1:36:57 PM

Quote :

"it's a multi-billion dollar industry in which the workforce gets none of it"

Isn't that the way just about all industry is? I think a fair way to do it would be through some type of jersey sales. Put their names on it and if an athlete, like Manziel, is popular enough to sell a bunch then they get those profits. I don't think it is feasible to allow random people to give benefits while trying to prevent boosters from funneling money.

8/7/2013 2:32:42 PM

Quote :

"I don't think it is feasible to allow random people to give benefits while trying to prevent boosters from funneling money. "

This is true although it isnt much different than it is now. People will always find a way to bend or skirt the rules. Force schools to keep records on anyone who has donated money to the athletic program and if funds can be traced back to those people then you punish the institution or person first based on the type of infraction.

If the money was being intentionally funneled by the school direct or through someone you come down hard on that program. If it was some sorta booster doing it on his own trying to convince a kid to goto a certain school then the school needs to take action like taking away season tickets or keeping them out of sanctioned events or something of that nature. It is an imperfect system but better than how things are now where a kid has to worry about selling his own game jersey for some cash because he might be ruled ineligible.

8/7/2013 2:57:11 PM

while I agree that the system now sucks, I think you're just opening up pandora's box if you make it "legal" for student athletes to accept money. There is too much gray area between making money off of the profit from jersey sales, and accepting money for any of a thousand other places a booster will find to exploit the system.

8/7/2013 3:02:50 PM

Yeah the problem is the NCAA isnt gonna take the time to keep up with how much money they owe each player for jersey sales, if you pay one player you gotta pay every single one and keeping up with that for how many student athletes there are would be a nightmare in itself. The whole situation is fucked but there has to be some sorta middle ground that can be found.

8/7/2013 3:23:18 PM

Quote :

" Put their names on it and if an athlete, like Manziel, is popular enough to sell a bunch then they get those profits."

Most of the NCAA revenues are distributed right back to the member institutions.

If you give those profits to Manziel/Clowney/etc, then you're really just taking a nickel away from every college soccer player, backup lineman, and track athlete.

Maybe that's what needs to happen and maybe not, but that's what the result would be.

8/7/2013 10:20:00 PM

^^ That's why the middle ground is to let the star players get what they can for their likenesses on the free market instead of trying to figure out a way for the school to pay them. Linemen still get a free ride and a chance at a pro career, and football stars and Olympic sport athletes get the opportunity to profit from their skills without anyone feeling cheated at the institutional level.

8/7/2013 10:36:48 PM

But then you're back to Micheal Jordan buying every UNC basketball recruit's autographed jersey for $50,000 dollars.

8/7/2013 10:41:13 PM

It's already disingenuous to not treat Division 1 revenue sports like they're professional clubs. Just do it. Who cares if the rich get richer? They get preferential treatment as it is.

8/7/2013 10:42:25 PM

Seriously, I mean, you all do realize that D-I football and basketball are nothing more than the minor leagues, right? Why do you think that the NFL, MLB, NBA all have rules about how far removed from high school you have to be to be eligible for the draft? It sure as shit isn't player safety or anything based on ability. It's about saving money, and the unions love it because it helps veterans keep a roster spot.

I mean, 18 year olds didn't just suddenly stop being good enough to play in the NBA, the one and done rule popped up because NBA teams got tired of drafting "phenoms" who turned into busts so they figured out a way to have a 40 game showcase for free.

Does anyone here think that Clowney isn't ready and able to play in the NFL right now? Fuck no, but the NFLPA has no desire to see more young guys coming in and taking roster spots from current players.

8/8/2013 10:28:26 AM

Not really sure why people don't understand just how free the market would be if athletes would be allowed to accept $ for "autographs" or "jersies." First, Oregon would love this. NCSU would also never come close to beating UNC/Duke in a revenue sport (i.e. what people care about). There are at least salary caps in the NBA/NFL, right? It's nothing for Kentucky/UNC/Duke to come up with 15 mil to get a guy like Wiggins or Durant for a year. For an NCSU fan/grad to want athletes to be able to accept "autograph" money is insane. Oregon and Texas would meet in the BCS title game in football every year I assume.


[Edited on August 8, 2013 at 11:37 AM. Reason : .]

8/8/2013 11:36:22 AM

Quote :

"It's already disingenuous to not treat Division 1 revenue sports like they're professional clubs. Just do it. Who cares if the rich get richer? They get preferential treatment as it is."

Because then it would suck to watch collegiate sports with only a few teams dominating. It would be like not having a salary cap in professional sports.

8/8/2013 11:42:32 AM

I like the idea that there aren't any rich State fans. You do realize Jim Goodknight is worth like six billion dollars, right?

[Edited on August 8, 2013 at 12:08 PM. Reason : 3]

8/8/2013 12:06:57 PM

You do realize Goodnight has never given a penny to athletics, right?? Ever looked at our booster clubs totals compared to UNC's?? It's scary.

8/8/2013 12:08:29 PM

He shouldn't give money to athletics. Athletics aren't important.

8/8/2013 12:09:34 PM

then your point about how rich goodnight is is meaningless in the context that you used it.

8/8/2013 12:13:15 PM

I like it when vinylbandit gets lost and ends up in Sports Talk.

8/8/2013 12:15:43 PM

The context I used is the implication that State is fucked if the system goes to a free market, suggesting that the State fan base doesn't have deep pockets.

1. It does.

2. No one knows what the landscape would look like in a free market situation. Who says there aren't State fans out there who are willing to throw down a couple million a year if it's for a top five player instead of for a nice training room that may or may not impress someone who wants to go to Kentucky? We don't know because the opportunity has never existed.

8/8/2013 12:27:49 PM

If we turn it into a professional league we need to entirely remove education.

No admission unless they earn it separately, no scholarships unless they are earned completely separately for the sport, no meal plans, not a single person in the athletic department on the university payroll, the team has to pay fair market rate to lease any facilities, etc...

8/8/2013 12:32:36 PM

Quote :

"The context I used is the implication that State is fucked if the system goes to a free market, suggesting that the State fan base doesn't have deep pockets. 1. It does."

We don't have jackshit in comparison to the top schools.

Quote :

"If we turn it into a professional league we need to entirely remove education. "

I actually agree with this. Turn it into Canadian junior hockey. What you can have is a private enterprise for U22 football players ran like a business and a private group can pay for a license to use the university's name, and pay rent for the stadium plus a surcharge for every ticket sold. This would also be great for governments which by extension run most of these universities, because college athletics would no longer have tax-free status, which in the 21st century with multibillion dollar TV contracts, it shouldn't. The private enterprise is entirely responsible for all the kids' costs (scholarship if they go to school, they pay room and board) and the university has no liability.

The kids want to make it about football and education is a side thing, fine, that's what it is now anyway. They're kept or not based entirely on their caliber of play, the universities can actually uphold their educational standards, and if the kid gets Ds and Fs, he's kicked out, which he should be.

[Edited on August 8, 2013 at 12:46 PM. Reason : /]

8/8/2013 12:35:23 PM

There's absolutely no reason for the proposed "Division 4" schools not to be like that.

8/8/2013 12:35:35 PM

Quote :

"The context I used is the implication that State is fucked if the system goes to a free market, suggesting that the State fan base doesn't have deep pockets. "

We still don't have deep pockets compared to the rest of the schools in the country. We're average...which is where our sports programs are now and where they would be if we went free market. The only difference being that there would probably be about 5-10 schools that would be head, shoulders, knees, and toes above the average schools rather than just head and shoulders like they are now.

And you really think that non-sports alumni who have never given a penny will actually give money to sports if it turned into an arms[money] race?? It would probably have the opposite effect. Goodnight would probably care less about athletics once it went straight money.

8/8/2013 12:40:45 PM

Quote :

"We don't know because the opportunity has never existed."

No, we don't. But again, ever look at UNC's booster club totals compared to ours? You think that if the system was changes, all the deep pocketed NC State fans that never donated would suddently start donating and come close to the $$ at UNC, or Kentucky?

8/8/2013 12:41:32 PM

in my completely unscientific opinion, State fans are waaaaaaay more rabid than Carolina fans, and given the chance, I think we'd be totally ok in the open market

Quote :

"I like it when vinylbandit gets lost and ends up in Sports Talk."

he's been a regular in Sports Talk for 10+ years now, but whatever

8/8/2013 12:50:37 PM

Quote :

"State fans are waaaaaaay more rabid than Carolina fans"

Too bad you don't get paid for being rabid.

8/8/2013 12:53:00 PM

Quote :

"State fans are waaaaaaay more rabid than Carolina fans"

maybe so, but in my unscientific opinion, there are waaaaaay more Carolina fans. Why are their booster donations so much higher than ours now? Why aren't are rabid fans donating more right now?

8/8/2013 12:53:49 PM

because if they were given the opportunity to give money in a completely free market, I think they'd step up to the challenge

they'd see it as a competition against Carolina

blah blah blah

8/8/2013 12:56:42 PM

I pay attention to Canadian college football a bit, and there's an interesting model in use by some schools there that the NCAA would never allow.

The top dog in Canadian college football is Laval, located near Quebec City. They're a French-speaking university that only first started playing collegiate football in 1996. In the 17 years since then, they’ve won the Quebec Conference title for 11 of them including the last 10 in a row. They’ve made the Vanier Cup national championship game 8 times, and have won the national championship 7 times. So they’re batting a pretty good average.

Quote :

"The Rouge et Or’s 13 varsity teams are treated as individual clubs that operate as autonomous units within the Athletics framework. Though the 13 clubs have a combined operating budget of about $5 million, only $500,000 comes from the Athletics department. Each club has its own president, board of directors and head of fundraising to seek out private sponsorship. “These people are often businessmen and businesswomen who have an entrepreneurial attitude,” Laval Athletics director Gilles Lépine said. Other schools are noticing. Lépine said representatives from eight other Canadian university programs have visited Quebec City to examine the model over the past two years. Queen’s Athletics director Leslie Dal Cin visited the campus in August. The Rouge et Or’s push for private funding began in the 1980s, when the university was suffering a financial deficit. At that point, they didn’t even have a football team. The Athletics program decided community sponsorship was the only way to keep their varsity teams. “We told the community ‘if you want to have these sports, you have to put money on the table. If not, we have to cut them,’ ” Lépine said. “And it worked.” The Rouge et Or spoke to Jacques Tanguay — a high-profile Quebec City businessman and Laval alumnus who secured deals with several corporate sponsors and helped create the Rouge et Or football program in 1995. They won their first Vanier Cup within five years. … The Rouge et Or football team’s operating budget is over $2 million, most of which comes from private sponsorship. According to Lépine, the Rouge et Or use the football team’s popularity with sponsors to benefit other sports programs. Lépine maintains a policy stipulating that sponsors of the football team must also sponsor all other Laval sports. Laval’s student-athletes make up the 400 volunteers who work home football games. Instead of paying the students, Athletics funnels the profits into their teams. “It’s intimidated a lot of programs,” Sheahan said. “Their whole approach to marketing and sponsorship is … so far ahead of everybody else in terms of how to make money through your football program.” Sheahan said the Rouge et Or football program has taken an active role in CEGEP football to ensure they’ll be getting top recruits. He added that Laval has been instrumental in the creation of CEGEP football programs. “They’ve gone in and helped them secure equipment and they’ve got their graduates in there working as coaches,” Sheahan said. Sheahan sent sports marketing experts and football alumni to Quebec City to study the program and seek advice from Laval staff last year. While the Rouge et Or have five full-time coaches, 8,000 season ticket holders and hold spring training camp in Florida every year, the Gaels have two full-time coaches and conduct spring camp on Tindall field. “They have a lot that people should be trying to emulate,” Sheahan said. “But they also have a lot that’s almost impossible to emulate.”"

http://gilbertcoyle.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/lavals-secret/

I think “free market” would look something like this. There’s other schools that do it, Regina, Carleton – a university in Ottawa is restarting their football team this coming year with the same model. There's even some sports we pretty much do this now, it's just they're club sports instead of varsity (e.g. the rugby teams).

The main difference is Laval while a giant in Canadian college football would be the equivalent of a good American NCAA Division II team, maybe on their day they could beat a Division I-AA team (the bad weather up there most of the year really hinders their quarterback development). Think of the massive amounts of money that will be thrown around in American college football in such a model? And when there’s massive amounts of money getting thrown around, there are a lot of schools that are going to have their programs bite the dust attempting to keep up and being unable to. I don’t think N.C. State can keep up, we can’t keep up with the rest of the BCS now, and neither can most of the rest of the ACC.

[Edited on August 8, 2013 at 1:02 PM. Reason : /]

8/8/2013 12:57:23 PM

Quote :

"because if they were given the opportunity to give money in a completely free market, I think they'd step up to the challenge they'd see it as a competition against Carolina"

They don't do it because they're poor:

Endowment:

UNC: 2.2 billion

NC State: 635 million

I don't think there's much of a difference in the booster clubs either.

Oh, and:

Quote :

"he's been a regular in Sports Talk for 10+ years now, but whatever "

Hockey and soccer don't count. He contributes as much to NC State athletic discussion as he thinks everyone else contributes to music discussions.



[Edited on August 8, 2013 at 1:14 PM. Reason : .]

8/8/2013 12:58:11 PM

^ and Carolina can't compare to Ohio State I'd bet

8/8/2013 1:02:46 PM

No doubt. UNC's boosters would make sure that the bball team stayed at the top, however.

8/8/2013 1:11:46 PM

Nothing will happen til the O'Bannon case is over. If O'Bannon & crew win, then it will still get appealed. Until the NCAA are literally forced to pay players, they won't even think about doing it (not blaming them, who wouldn't roll by with a free workforce if given the opportunity)

8/8/2013 1:17:36 PM

Quote :

"I would like to see some sort of system where players are allowed to accept money from outside entities after they are already in school. If Joe Schmoe wants to give a kid 7500 to sign autographs then he should be allowed to. If some guy wants to trade tattoos for game worn items then let him. If some agent wants to front a guy a car in hopes that he will sign with the guy then let him. However, no money should ever come from the school either directly or through "other means" other than the things that are normally provided like tuition and room and board etc. No boosters or people who donate to the athletic program should be allowed to funnel money to them either. Then the NCAA just needs to police that and if a school is found to be doing it they need to be punished harshly. This gives athletes a chance to make money off their talents while in school and will at least limit I think anyone gaining a super unfair advantage. Bigger name schools will give more exposure and more opportunities to make cash but guys already goto those schools for the better chance at the NFL and such so it shouldnt tip the scales too much."

I'm not trying to be a dick here, but this is the dumbest idea I have heard in a long time. Students can get paid, jut not "by the school". What the hell, man. This would have the effect of schools funneling money to players through those supposed "outside" agencies. Why not just let the school pay directly? What makes the money different if it comes from Joe Blow as opposed to Chancellor Bob? Not only that, but it would be impossible to police, much harder than the current system, frankly, because you have all the noise of players getting paid to sort through; right now, when PJ Hairston shows up in a car that everyone knows he can't afford, it raises suspicions, but when EVERYONE is showing up in those cars, how the hell do you know who to look at? If you're gonna pay the players, then pay the players and be done with it. Forget trying to make it look more legit. Just pay them.

I think if we're going to pay the players, then we should just dissolve the collegiate athletic system completely. There will be zero parity the moment tOSU, Alabama, Texas, USC, UCLA, and UNC can start buying recruits and all the other programs will completely fold, so let's just divorce the athletics from the academics and be done with it. Maybe clubs can be affiliated with a university for old time's sake or shits and giggles.

8/8/2013 6:31:30 PM

Quote :

"Maybe clubs can be affiliated with a university for old time's sake or shits and giggles."

That's a bingo.

8/8/2013 6:42:41 PM

There's some pride of playing for these universities, because that's just what people did for years. But what if a league with no affiliations was formed, strictly for 18-23 year old football players, offering 50k a year? If that option was there, college football could become the CFL breeding ground. TA mclendon sure as shit wouldn't have gone to college.

[Edited on August 8, 2013 at 7:47 PM. Reason : i guess, basically that ^]

8/8/2013 7:46:49 PM

For those of you who don't follow Jay Bilas on twitter...

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/9551518/ncaa-shuts-site-jersey-sales-says-hypocritical

8/8/2013 8:56:23 PM

Quote :

"But what if a league with no affiliations was formed, strictly for 18-23 year old football players, offering 50k a year?"

It'd flop at the gate and fail because the reason people watch 20-year-olds play football to start with is because it's their alma mater. I don't watch N.C. State football for our stud linebacker that is a surefire first-round draft pick for the NFL, I watch it for N.C. State.

$50k per year multiplied by 50 players = $2.5 million, and we've not paid for coaches, travel, equipment and jerseys, field upkeep, etc. There's a reason minor league football has always been a struggle in this country: football is a very expensive sport to run a team. The UFL when it started paid guys $6500 a game, and they were far higher caliber and had more of a fanbase than a U22 semi-pro league would, had games on TV, and they still lost millions of dollars.

What you want is the D-League for the NBA, but 1.) the best players still go to college basketball instead of the D-League, where they can get paid, and 2.) they're not making 50k a year in the D-League because there's little crowds and little TV interest.

[Edited on August 9, 2013 at 8:52 AM. Reason : /]

8/9/2013 8:49:51 AM

^i didn't know 26 million people went to Alabama and Notre Dame.

8/9/2013 9:16:57 AM

^^ the point was that in the absence of college sports, there would be a market for those things. no one is saying that there is a market to compete with college sports.

my statement was that if we decide to pay college athletes, we need to completely seperate it from education. let the universities lease facilities and license their name if they want, but that's the only involvement.

8/9/2013 9:22:54 AM

I enjoy pulling for State athletics. I attend at least several games a year, I but State memorabilia, I keep up with the a lot of the other ACC schools, and I casually pay attention to the other big time teams around the country.

If they were completely dissociated from college sports, I think I would have zero interest in a U-22 semi-pro football league. I'm sure a lot of other college sports fans feel the same.

The moral thing to do is to probably remove athletics from colleges, but for selfish reasons, I hope it doesn't happen.

8/9/2013 9:53:49 AM

There is to much infrastructure and money already connected with the universities, but what could happen is the BCS football schools saying screw the NCAA and leaving. This isn't the students vs. the NCAA + Universities, this is really the students + the Universities vs. the NCAA. I mean A&M is hiring lawyers(the same that defended Cam Newton and Auburn) to protect Manziel and their potential season.The schools try to protect the players, and in turn their own brand and ability to make money. Athletes need the universities and the universities need the athletes, but why do any of them need the NCAA?

8/9/2013 10:15:36 AM

Quote :

"This isn't the students vs. the NCAA + Universities, this is really the students + the Universities vs. the NCAA"

This is the most bullshit thing in the world, the universities ARE THE NCAA! If they want the NCAA out of power, they can secede en masse or vote to dissolve! The universities elect the NCAA president, select the rules the NCAA enforces, determines priorities, eligibility procedures, etc.

If the NCAA disappears, what's going to happen? A group of universities will get together and create a new body that would be for all intents and purposes an NCAA.

Quote :

"the point was that in the absence of college sports, there would be a market for those things."

So you're telling me if N.C. State's football team disbanded tomorrow, this team would instantly become successful and 10000 people or so are going to buy tickets to see them play? https://www.facebook.com/RaleighKnightsSemiProFootballTeam

[Edited on August 9, 2013 at 10:36 AM. Reason : /]

8/9/2013 10:31:19 AM

They don't. It's only a matter of time before the bigger conferences decide that they don't want to be part of this voluntary organization. Honestly, if it wasn't for March Madness it probably would have happened already.

And yes, schools will form organizations of some kind because they want some unified rules and understanding on how things operate. In order to have schools schedule each other you need some kind of organization.

[Edited on August 9, 2013 at 10:38 AM. Reason : asdfsdfs]

8/9/2013 10:32:44 AM

Quote :

"So you're telling me if N.C. State's football team disbanded tomorrow, this team would instantly become successful and 10000 people or so are going to buy tickets to see them play? https://www.facebook.com/RaleighKnightsSemiProFootballTeam"

Don't be silly, but when the NFL is forced to subsidize a minor league you'll see some really good football in about 50 different cities without NFL teams. Minor league baseball does fine, but mostly it's funded by the major league teams that they feed.

8/9/2013 10:40:41 AM