Why I don’t like the Trent Richardson trade… yet
October 7, 2013NBA Previews – Atlantic Division and Pacific Division links
October 7, 2013“If (athletes are) not comfortable on campus and they want to monetize, then let the minor leagues flourish. Or go to IMG. Train at IMG. Get agents to invest in your body, get agents to invest in your likeness, and establish it on your own. But don’t come here and say you want to be paid $25,000 or $50,000. Go to the (NBA) D-League and get it. Go to the NBA and get it. Go to the NFL and get it. Don’t ask us to change what we’re doing, because we think there are a lot of good things to preserve.”
— Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany on the dialogue about pay-to-play opportunities for NCAA athletes, to a small group of reporters in the conference’s new offices in Chicago.
Delany’s comments strongly recommend for athletes who want to “professionalize themselves” to make the jump to professional minor leagues as opposed to college athletics, saying “Why is it our job to be minor leagues for professional sports?”
As a recommended conference model, Delany said each conference should legislate their own rules by which schools can provide more benefits to cover full cost of attendance for college athletes. Yet, he said “I feel as strongly as I did 20 years ago it’s not pay-for-play.”
[Related: Ohio State holds on for 40-30 victory at Northwestern]
15 Comments
I am not a huge fan of this man, but I agree with him. There’s money out there. Go there if you want paid. That’s the risk. College is supposed to be student-athletes (with student being the key word.) Now, I’m not naive. I’m well aware of what it’s become, but I’m all for bringing it back to what it used to be.
That toothpaste is not getting back in the tube anytime soon. It’s been out since at least the 70s.
Just pay them for their efforts. At the very least, guarantee them 4 years of tuition for risking life and limb on the football field.
He makes a good point. The NCAA still does a ton of stuff wrong, but this is a strong argument.
Translation: “You want a “raise”? How dare you even ask. You should be thankful you even have the opportunity that you do. Now get back out there and beat the hell out of your body while we make billions off of your time and efforts, you ungrateful whiners. How dare you question us. If you don’t like it here, go somewhere else…and good luck finding a better opportunity.”
When was the last time an NFL player was drafted that didn’t play college football? He is being pretty obtuse if he thinks players can go elsewhere and have more than a miniscule shot at the NFL.
Best argument against paying players i have ever heard
yes to 4 year schollies. No to paying them more than that. But, I’m all for letting them find their own endorsement/autograph/whatever deals. And if local businesses want to offer cake jobs to kids for being good at football, so be it.
I don’t understand why the NCAA should have to make things “equal”. Isn’t college about learning about life? Isn’t one of the first rules of life that “life isnt fair”? If a smaller university cant compete with the big boys, welp, maybe they should step down to the FCS.
Schools could never pay athletes directly because then every scholarship athlete would have to get the same amount due to Title IX.
You make a great point. For the ” athletes making money on their image,” just get out of the way. Do nothing. If you can make a few bucks slinging pizzas or pitching used cars, who cares?
I can see the tuition for 4 years (so long as they hold up their end of the bargain in the classroom.) That’s it though.
That being said, I think the NCAA has vastly overreached it’s hand. While they shouldn’t be paying the players (their pay is the free tuition) they also shouldn’t be stopping them from marketing themselves (as in, if they can sell an autograph, let them…)
they don’t “let” them because they then open themselves up to be sued by the players for part of the TV money (and unionization, etc.).
I think they need to figure something better out myself (and it’s especially stupid that they don’t let coaches feed the players, etc.), but I understand why they don’t want to just open the flood gates.
I also happen to think that college athletics will look vastly different than today in less than 10 years. A storm is a brewing.
I agree that the landscape is going to change. However, I do not think that allowing students to make their own deals outside of the purview of the NCAA would open the schools up to lawsuits about TV money and such. I’m guessing (repeat: guessing) that there is some small print already in most scholarships that relinquishes certain rights of the individual to make any claim against the university for such a thing. If not, their lawyers are pretty awful.
Not being very athletic means I’ve never seen a scholarship, so I have no idea. I just couldn’t imagine there wouldn’t be some protections built into the scholarship agreements.
I think the O’Bannon lawsuit is different because EA was using specific players names and likenesses. With TV deals its more about the schools and networks haggling things out years in advance.
I am not a lawyer, but I did watch a lot of Matlock at my Grandparents house.
i’m also sure it’s in the fine print. i’m also sure that contracts can be challenged and, at some point, they will be.
i don’t think it’s a stretch to say that college athletes are pretty much forced to go to college to make a living in professional sports. good luck going to Europe (hey Jeremy Tyler) or a minor league and getting enough experience, development, and hype to make it to the pros. as such, they are pretty much forced to sign whatever is put in front of them.
I’m sure if they wanted to pay their own way, take out student loans, and walk-on somewhere, they’d still be able to find a roster spot. They dont have to take these scholarships.
Granted, walk ons are subject to the same rules as scholarship players, which is really dumb, but that’s a different conversation.
I like it. But, then you still have the issue of those walk-on players then suing schools for a piece of the TV money.
I heard Cowherd talking to Stanford’s coach (I believe) a few weeks ago about this. It was the most intriguing argument I’ve heard so far. They said the cost of going to college for 4 years is approx 100k+. This is a real benefit, as is the tax exempt status those players receive on that benefit. Meaning, the IRS does not collect the approximate 30k on that gift/benefit like they would from the average person. So all athletes (football, baseball, diving, track, lacrosse, etc) are benefitting approx 130k+. While there, they have access to an education that many people desire. It is up to them to take advantage of that, but if they do, the purpose of that education and to a greater extent, the entire endeavor of college is to teach kids how to make money more efficiently than those who don’t have that education.
So there are two real benefits to the scholar athlete that most people are not given, and those benefits are huge. Hearing people scoff at those benefits is a little too dismissive in my opinion.
On top of all that, there are truly only a handful of college athletes that can be said to generate money for their schools. Most schools only generate from the football program and many schools generate because of the school/team and not from a particular player. Meaning they don’t have one particular player that has a high enough National Q that he would generate the extra money for his school.
To be sure, there is another side to this whole thing such as allowing these kids to have jobs or finding a way to tie those few $ generating players to their own revenue streams (ie Manziel, Clowney) and setting up a percentage of that in a trust to be collected on the back end of their college careers. Someone smarter than me would have to work on that but I can’t imagine it would be too hard to prove that Manziel merchandise is generating a major profit in the campus bookstore and online sales. Giving him a cut at the end would be a nice perk. Wouldn’t solve the “broke college kid” syndrome while in college but didn’t we all have to go through that to some extent?
There were a few more compelling points they made but I can’t recall them all. I would love to have audio because it was the first time someone verbalized so eloquently that side of the argument.