tsubamoto2001 said:

---

Speaking of which...Jordan Brown is now in the Transfer Portal. Will Cal be his 3rd school?

---

Cal should jump on him...he would give immediate help on both ends of the court....In fact, he would be the best player on the team....hands down....

59bear said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

I said players should be able to transfer and earn from NIL

I'm open to other types of compensation as well

My point is competitive balance when we have 100% free agency all the time

The nba has put somethings in place to maintain some level of balance. It's good for the sport and that means it's also good for the players

So what things can the NCAA do to adjust in this new world which favors the powerhouse teams that already have a big advantage (while we have 100% free agency and NIL compensation)

This is not a zero sum game. The players can have free agency/NIL AND the the NCAA can put things in place to protect a level of competitive balance

ClayK said:

---

Um, what kind of competitive balance exists right now? In any sport at any level?

So what was being "protected" by limiting transfers? (It's even worse at the high school level -- why can't kids go where they want to play sports? They can go where they want to be in drama or find robotics programs.)

Finally, shouldn't what's best for the young people in college be a higher priority than what's best for an AD or coach?

---

---

I believe the last three NBC collective bargaining agreements have included a player revenue share of over 50% (I think it has grown each time). So maybe the NCAA should start with ,,,,

Collective bargaining

50% Revenue share to players. But all player costs, such as scholarships, housing, meal table, etc will be on the players. Now, the cost of tuition and living costs can go into a players recruiting decision.

Come to think of it, we should institute a draft instead of recruiting,

Players that wish to transfer must be part of a multi-player trade. We could include some value system to make sure it is equitable.

This is not intended to come across as sarcastic - but I'm guessing it does. But this is the direction that College basketball has been going for decades - why not embrace the professionalism. So many are hung up on some weird sense of amateurism that an NCAA executive came up with in the 50s in order to avoid congressional oversight of a corrupt system.

---

The biggest problem with the system you're proposing is that taking college sports further along the path of professionalism is seen by many as well outside the core mission of an institution of higher learning. I have no problem with kids getting paid to play sports but I'd much rather it come from the NBA, NFL, MLB or other private enterprise. The issue is not amateurism, which is largely non-existent beyond Little league or high school. It is whether educational institutions ought to be in the big time entertainment business, often at an operating loss

---

Agreed. My proposal was somewhat tongue in cheek. If I was grand poobah for a day, I'd propose that the NCAA remove itself from Football and MBB and stick to traditional non revenue sports.

HoopDreams said:

---

so if some think the entire ncaa sports landscape is wrong, and we should pay players like professionals, and allow them to move as unrestricted free agents 100% of the time, with no new mechanisms to maintain some level of competitive balance, then how should we set the appropriate level of compensation? 2 questions:

Question 1: Which of these market-based approaches is best for the sport?

1) just like the job market - teams post openings, and players apply. they agree on compensation. most employees are 'at will' employment meaning the player can leave for any reason with no notice, and companies can dismiss them without cause (unless it violates employment laws, etc)

2) collective bargaining - basically a player union (the way the NBA does it)

3) the way entertainers like movie stars do it - with full contracts that are negotiated on any terms the two parties agree to, including restrictions/financial penalties to leave the company/team outside the term of the contract

4) other, but I think the above 3 options are the most likely


Question 2: Which of these options would Cal agree to participate in?

---

First, I don't agree that the entire NCAA sports landscape is wrong. I would break down NCAA into three groups;

1. Football - it generates most of the revenue. Acts as a minor league for the NFL, P5 pretty much does what it wants and NCAA goes along with it.

2. Mens Basketball (MBB) - generates revenue for some schools. March Madness is a huge cultural phenomenon, which is controlled by NCAA. I could go on and on about NCAA mucking with MBB with arbitrary rules about eligibility, transfers, etc. Without the tourney, we would ONLY be talking about Football. MBB would devolve to the group below and money would not be the same.

3. Every other college sport. Most people, other than participants don't care much. From what I hear, NCAA organize wonderful tournaments and is doing a fine job.

I think two parts are flawed (Football and MBB), but I think that is what you are getting at.

As for your questions, I think Question 1 applies to Football and Basketball differently. In both cases, I like 59s idea to let the NFL & NBA deal with sports entertainment business. NCAA should not be involved and colleges should not be trying to duplicate the MLB minor leagues. Since these are sports, 1) & 3) won't work - so we are left with 2) like the NBA & NFL have.

As for Question #2, Using 'would' - my guess is that Cal would go along with what the majority of P12 would. This admin is neither a leader or innovator, when it comes to sports. Using 'should', I think Cal needs to recognize that it wants to participate, but does not want to win, so it should recognize that when making large financial decisions like facilities and coaches salaries.

> The issue is not amateurism, which is largely non-existent beyond Little league or high school. It is whether educational institutions ought to be in the big time entertainment business, often at an operating loss.

Obviously, though, big-time sports benefit colleges economically, or we would see them exiting the arena rather than trying to get in. The ROI comes from free marketing, alumni interest, etc. If big-time sports truly lost money, then at least some schools would abandon them. But none do ...

That said, though, it is weird that the model developed, because Division I athletics have zero to do with educating young people.

BeachedBear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

so if some think the entire ncaa sports landscape is wrong, and we should pay players like professionals, and allow them to move as unrestricted free agents 100% of the time, with no new mechanisms to maintain some level of competitive balance, then how should we set the appropriate level of compensation? 2 questions:

Question 1: Which of these market-based approaches is best for the sport?

1) just like the job market - teams post openings, and players apply. they agree on compensation. most employees are 'at will' employment meaning the player can leave for any reason with no notice, and companies can dismiss them without cause (unless it violates employment laws, etc)

2) collective bargaining - basically a player union (the way the NBA does it)

3) the way entertainers like movie stars do it - with full contracts that are negotiated on any terms the two parties agree to, including restrictions/financial penalties to leave the company/team outside the term of the contract

4) other, but I think the above 3 options are the most likely


Question 2: Which of these options would Cal agree to participate in?

---

First, I don't agree that the entire NCAA sports landscape is wrong. I would break down NCAA into three groups;

1. Football - it generates most of the revenue. Acts as a minor league for the NFL, P5 pretty much does what it wants and NCAA goes along with it.

2. Mens Basketball (MBB) - generates revenue for some schools. March Madness is a huge cultural phenomenon, which is controlled by NCAA. I could go on and on about NCAA mucking with MBB with arbitrary rules about eligibility, transfers, etc. Without the tourney, we would ONLY be talking about Football. MBB would devolve to the group below and money would not be the same.

3. Every other college sport. Most people, other than participants don't care much. From what I hear, NCAA organize wonderful tournaments and is doing a fine job.

I think two parts are flawed (Football and MBB), but I think that is what you are getting at.

As for your questions, I think Question 1 applies to Football and Basketball differently. In both cases, I like 59s idea to let the NFL & NBA deal with sports entertainment business. NCAA should not be involved and colleges should not be trying to duplicate the MLB minor leagues. Since these are sports, 1) & 3) won't work - so we are left with 2) like the NBA & NFL have.

As for Question #2, Using 'would' - my guess is that Cal would go along with what the majority of P12 would. This admin is neither a leader or innovator, when it comes to sports. Using 'should', I think Cal needs to recognize that it wants to participate, but does not want to win, so it should recognize that when making large financial decisions like facilities and coaches salaries.

---

In respect to the subject of the thread I am going to take issue with your depiction of football (and why Cal has been, occasionally, not too bad at it).

The VAST majority of NCAA football players do NOT make money playing it. Even those that might get drafted have a VERY short time frame to make bank in a brutal game with no guaranteed contracts (for most). One knee injury from the cut list.

The result is that, unlike Hoop (see below), I believe a greater majority of MOST football recruits value education. Even the SEC, warts and all, sells this to the vast majority of the kids that are going to "regional" schools (just that the south, still embracing football more than California High schools produces more talent).

As you note, basketball is different because the tournament essentially funds the NCAA bureaucracy. They have a very odd incentive to ensure that March is madness and that means blue blood programs get in and can succeed (along with incentives to get a Cinderella in as well cause that generates interest).

ClayK said:

---

> The issue is not amateurism, which is largely non-existent beyond Little league or high school. It is whether educational institutions ought to be in the big time entertainment business, often at an operating loss.

Obviously, though, big-time sports benefit colleges economically, or we would see them exiting the arena rather than trying to get in. The ROI comes from free marketing, alumni interest, etc. If big-time sports truly lost money, then at least some schools would abandon them. But none do ...

That said, though, it is weird that the model developed, because Division I athletics have zero to do with educating young people.

---

I understand that the perceived wisdom is that schools benefit from their investment in athletics in areas of brand value and alumni support but I wonder if this supposed benefit has ever been quantified. I'm sure some of T. Boone Pickens' mega-gifts to Oklahoma State went to non-athletic needs but a hell of a lot are sports related. Similarly, Phil Knight has spent money at Oregon on academic facilities but it is the athletic department that gets the ink. The Haas and Goldman families have done a lot for Cal, presumably on things not sports related as well as those that are but IIRC, Gordon Moore and Andy Grove have favored noted sports powerhouse CalTech rather than Cal. As for "brand value", I admit to a high degree of skepticism on most things called "marketing". Really, do the brands of Cal, Stanford, MIT, CalTech, UCLA , Chicago or the Ivies need sports for name recognition? I would say clearly not.

If those schools don't see the value of big-time sports, and lose money, why then would they all continue? You would think at least one would look at the bottom line and say "This is just wasted money -- we can use the funds more effectively."

Here's an interesting fact: Gonzaga's administration made a conscious decision to invest in basketball, actually buying TV time in Portland and Seattle to show their games.

"Gonzaga's trustees and Fr. Spitzer saw the potential benefit of investing in basketball after the team had unexpectedly reached the Elite Eight in the 1999 NCAA Tournament. "Basketball's continued success helped change the profile of the institution academically, and helped propel enrollment and fundraising," says Chuck Murphy, Gonzaga's longtime vice president for finance, and now, chief strategy officer. "The perception of Gonzaga changed, from being a back-up school to now being a primary-choice school for many students."

ClayK said:

---

If those schools don't see the value of big-time sports, and lose money, why then would they all continue? You would think at least one would look at the bottom line and say "This is just wasted money -- we can use the funds more effectively."

Here's an interesting fact: Gonzaga's administration made a conscious decision to invest in basketball, actually buying TV time in Portland and Seattle to show their games.

"Gonzaga's trustees and Fr. Spitzer saw the potential benefit of investing in basketball after the team had unexpectedly reached the Elite Eight in the 1999 NCAA Tournament. "Basketball's continued success helped change the profile of the institution academically, and helped propel enrollment and fundraising," says Chuck Murphy, Gonzaga's longtime vice president for finance, and now, chief strategy officer. "The perception of Gonzaga changed, from being a back-up school to now being a primary-choice school for many students."

---

A private Jesuit school is a different animal, as are Stanford and USC. Now if you want to emulate Big10 or SEC public's? UCLA has been trying for decades with some success when donors (bag men?) step in.

BeachedBear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

so if some think the entire ncaa sports landscape is wrong, and we should pay players like professionals, and allow them to move as unrestricted free agents 100% of the time, with no new mechanisms to maintain some level of competitive balance, then how should we set the appropriate level of compensation? 2 questions:

Question 1: Which of these market-based approaches is best for the sport?

1) just like the job market - teams post openings, and players apply. they agree on compensation. most employees are 'at will' employment meaning the player can leave for any reason with no notice, and companies can dismiss them without cause (unless it violates employment laws, etc)

2) collective bargaining - basically a player union (the way the NBA does it)

3) the way entertainers like movie stars do it - with full contracts that are negotiated on any terms the two parties agree to, including restrictions/financial penalties to leave the company/team outside the term of the contract

4) other, but I think the above 3 options are the most likely


Question 2: Which of these options would Cal agree to participate in?

---

First, I don't agree that the entire NCAA sports landscape is wrong. I would break down NCAA into three groups;

1. Football - it generates most of the revenue. Acts as a minor league for the NFL, P5 pretty much does what it wants and NCAA goes along with it.

2. Mens Basketball (MBB) - generates revenue for some schools. March Madness is a huge cultural phenomenon, which is controlled by NCAA. I could go on and on about NCAA mucking with MBB with arbitrary rules about eligibility, transfers, etc. Without the tourney, we would ONLY be talking about Football. MBB would devolve to the group below and money would not be the same.

3. Every other college sport. Most people, other than participants don't care much. From what I hear, NCAA organize wonderful tournaments and is doing a fine job.

I think two parts are flawed (Football and MBB), but I think that is what you are getting at.

As for your questions, I think Question 1 applies to Football and Basketball differently. In both cases, I like 59s idea to let the NFL & NBA deal with sports entertainment business. NCAA should not be involved and colleges should not be trying to duplicate the MLB minor leagues. Since these are sports, 1) & 3) won't work - so we are left with 2) like the NBA & NFL have.

As for Question #2, Using 'would' - my guess is that Cal would go along with what the majority of P12 would. This admin is neither a leader or innovator, when it comes to sports. Using 'should', I think Cal needs to recognize that it wants to participate, but does not want to win, so it should recognize that when making large financial decisions like facilities and coaches salaries.

---

The benefits to the colleges, at least at the P5 level, is that there are two sports (and most P5 schools actually just football) which funds hundreds of college spots that otherwise would have be funded by the colleges themselves, there is some benefit with fundraising Campus activities and arguably entertainment for students, alum and other stakeholders and a more diverse student body. There a few schools with some self-sufficient "non-revenue" sports, but for the most part football coaching salaries are a necessary investment to keep your football team competitive. The bottom line is competitive football at a school Iike Cal means paying for 500 or so student that campus would otherwise pay for since many subsidized teams would fold, and as administrators will quietly admit, brings some undefined level of donor money to Campus.

Most P5 schools use that model. This explains why there is much more administrative support at Cal for football than essentially break-even men's basketball. Allowing players to make money using their identity doesn't, in theory, hurt this benefit, since the players are drawing money from outside sponsors. Though there is an argument that sponsor contracts with schools and maybe donations to football programs will be cannibalized. The issue is if you start paying players in revenue sports that takes money off the table to subsidize 500 student spots and coach salaries to be competitive, will the schools keep the money machine going? At a school like Cal, that seems unlikely, as the sports then become less consistent with the school's primary purpose of education, and in the case of a school like Cal it's ethos.

some good responses, but no one has answered the question of how to set the compensation of college athletes since many are saying we are exploiting athletes and we should pay the players

My question, is how do we determine the 'fair market' in this situation?

And once we pick an approach, will that be something that Cal will likely participate in?

College ball is for scrubs:

Overtime launching new high school basketball league for NBA hopefuls - SportsPro Media


https://www.sportspromedia.com/news/overtime-elite-new-high-school-basketball-league-dan-porter-nba

socaltownie said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

so if some think the entire ncaa sports landscape is wrong, and we should pay players like professionals, and allow them to move as unrestricted free agents 100% of the time, with no new mechanisms to maintain some level of competitive balance, then how should we set the appropriate level of compensation? 2 questions:

Question 1: Which of these market-based approaches is best for the sport?

1) just like the job market - teams post openings, and players apply. they agree on compensation. most employees are 'at will' employment meaning the player can leave for any reason with no notice, and companies can dismiss them without cause (unless it violates employment laws, etc)

2) collective bargaining - basically a player union (the way the NBA does it)

3) the way entertainers like movie stars do it - with full contracts that are negotiated on any terms the two parties agree to, including restrictions/financial penalties to leave the company/team outside the term of the contract

4) other, but I think the above 3 options are the most likely


Question 2: Which of these options would Cal agree to participate in?

---

First, I don't agree that the entire NCAA sports landscape is wrong. I would break down NCAA into three groups;

1. Football - it generates most of the revenue. Acts as a minor league for the NFL, P5 pretty much does what it wants and NCAA goes along with it.

2. Mens Basketball (MBB) - generates revenue for some schools. March Madness is a huge cultural phenomenon, which is controlled by NCAA. I could go on and on about NCAA mucking with MBB with arbitrary rules about eligibility, transfers, etc. Without the tourney, we would ONLY be talking about Football. MBB would devolve to the group below and money would not be the same.

3. Every other college sport. Most people, other than participants don't care much. From what I hear, NCAA organize wonderful tournaments and is doing a fine job.

I think two parts are flawed (Football and MBB), but I think that is what you are getting at.

As for your questions, I think Question 1 applies to Football and Basketball differently. In both cases, I like 59s idea to let the NFL & NBA deal with sports entertainment business. NCAA should not be involved and colleges should not be trying to duplicate the MLB minor leagues. Since these are sports, 1) & 3) won't work - so we are left with 2) like the NBA & NFL have.

As for Question #2, Using 'would' - my guess is that Cal would go along with what the majority of P12 would. This admin is neither a leader or innovator, when it comes to sports. Using 'should', I think Cal needs to recognize that it wants to participate, but does not want to win, so it should recognize that when making large financial decisions like facilities and coaches salaries.

---

In respect to the subject of the thread I am going to take issue with your depiction of football (and why Cal has been, occasionally, not too bad at it).

The VAST majority of NCAA football players do NOT make money playing it. Even those that might get drafted have a VERY short time frame to make bank in a brutal game with no guaranteed contracts (for most). One knee injury from the cut list.

The result is that, unlike Hoop (see below), I believe a greater majority of MOST football recruits value education. Even the SEC, warts and all, sells this to the vast majority of the kids that are going to "regional" schools (just that the south, still embracing football more than California High schools produces more talent).

---

The vast majority of people who buy a lottery ticket do not win. That fact is not evidence that they bought the ticket for any other reason but the chance they might win.

There are other perks to being star football players on campus besides the education. I know many people who went to college for seemingly many other reasons than the education, and that was Cal.

BearSD said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

some good responses, but no one has answered the question of how to set the compensation of college athletes since many are saying we are exploiting athletes and we should pay the players

My question, is how do we determine the 'fair market' in this situation?

And once we pick an approach, will that be something that Cal will likely participate in?

---

Why set compensation for college athletes at all. Let them make as much money as they can or want to make from sources other than the universities themselves, and leave it at that. If Nike or adidas wants to pay a basketball player to endorse their shoes, let them. If a college athlete has a million followers on Instagram and can sell ads on their Instagram account for (reportedly) $15,000 to 30,000 each, let them do that.

---

Like the good old days when boosters paid for non-students to wear school laundry!

Let the market decide -- and it will.

Since endorsement deals are legal, Booster A can pay Player X any amount to endorse his law practice or real estate business. If the boosters pay the players, then the university doesn't have to be involved at all, there are no Title IX implications and the salary will be negotiated between the player and the boosters.

If Booster B from SEC Powerhouse outbids Booster A after one year, Player X can transfer -- unless the original deal was for more than one year.

It should be an interesting few years while the market establishes itself ...

59bear said:

---

ClayK said:

---

> The issue is not amateurism, which is largely non-existent beyond Little league or high school. It is whether educational institutions ought to be in the big time entertainment business, often at an operating loss.

Obviously, though, big-time sports benefit colleges economically, or we would see them exiting the arena rather than trying to get in. The ROI comes from free marketing, alumni interest, etc. If big-time sports truly lost money, then at least some schools would abandon them. But none do ...

That said, though, it is weird that the model developed, because Division I athletics have zero to do with educating young people.

---

I understand that the perceived wisdom is that schools benefit from their investment in athletics in areas of brand value and alumni support but I wonder if this supposed benefit has ever been quantified. I'm sure some of T. Boone Pickens' mega-gifts to Oklahoma State went to non-athletic needs but a hell of a lot are sports related. Similarly, Phil Knight has spent money at Oregon on academic facilities but it is the athletic department that gets the ink. The Haas and Goldman families have done a lot for Cal, presumably on things not sports related as well as those that are but IIRC, Gordon Moore and Andy Grove have favored noted sports powerhouse CalTech rather than Cal. As for "brand value", I admit to a high degree of skepticism on most things called "marketing". Really, do the brands of Cal, Stanford, MIT, CalTech, UCLA , Chicago or the Ivies need sports for name recognition? I would say clearly not.

---

There is a pretty clear correlation between athletic success and applications - FOR SECOND AND THIRD TIER SCHOOLS. Call it the Boise State effect (and before that Penn State which, as you might know, was a 2 year school for the longest time before Joe Pa rose to glory). In the era (which seems waning but is still semi with us) of the US News Ranking number of applications and "selectivity" play a role in ranking and, in turn, fuels more applications. So for the Boises (and maybe Zaga) there is a pretty strong business case for winning.

For schools like Cal or UCLA (or really even the SEC and Big 10) not so much. That is more of Alumni engagement strategy - getting alumni back on campus and feeling warm and fuzzy come dialing for dollars season with work study students

ClayK said:

---

Let the market decide -- and it will.

Since endorsement deals are legal, Booster A can pay Player X any amount to endorse his law practice or real estate business. If the boosters pay the players, then the university doesn't have to be involved at all, there are no Title IX implications and the salary will be negotiated between the player and the boosters.

If Booster B from SEC Powerhouse outbids Booster A after one year, Player X can transfer -- unless the original deal was for more than one year.

It should be an interesting few years while the market establishes itself ...

---

I don't see how it could be otherwise in the absence of some sort of collective bargaining agreement and I don't see the vast majority of schools, especially the Pubs, wanting any part of any arrangement that might see them construed as employers. I do see a couple of issues with the free market arrangement: 1) "Booster" sponsorship creating (greater) imbalance between the haves and have nots; 2 )the prospect of dissension within a team when a Heisman candidate star is banking 5, 6 or 7 digit money while many (most?) of his supporting cast get little or nothing. Will those anonymous, presumably meagerly compensated, toilers in the trenches be tempted to "open the gates" to impose a dose of humility?

The new NIL rules may do that, so that's not the question

Some people think that schools should directly pay players for their basketball services. So my question is how should schools determine player compensation and gave three free market options

BearSD said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

some good responses, but no one has answered the question of how to set the compensation of college athletes since many are saying we are exploiting athletes and we should pay the players

My question, is how do we determine the 'fair market' in this situation?

And once we pick an approach, will that be something that Cal will likely participate in?

---

Why set compensation for college athletes at all. Let them make as much money as they can or want to make from sources other than the universities themselves, and leave it at that. If Nike or adidas wants to pay a basketball player to endorse their shoes, let them. If a college athlete has a million followers on Instagram and can sell ads on their Instagram account for (reportedly) $15,000 to 30,000 each, let them do that.

---

Paying the best basketball and football players as much as Nike or other sponsors would pay is very unlikely to be profitable for an athletic department that supports 20-plus varsity sports.

And paying them far less than what commercial interests will pay is unlikely to have much of an impact. If Nike is paying the next Zion $500,000 to play one year at Duke, then the next Zion won't care much if Duke offers him $10,000 on top of Nike's $500,000.

So, IMO, forget about the schools handing small checks to athletes. Just keep hands off and let the athletes accept whatever anyone else wants to give them.

HoopDreams said:

---

The new NIL rules may do that, so that's not the question

Some people think that schools should directly pay players for their basketball services. So my question is how should schools determine player compensation and gave three free market options

BearSD said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

some good responses, but no one has answered the question of how to set the compensation of college athletes since many are saying we are exploiting athletes and we should pay the players

My question, is how do we determine the 'fair market' in this situation?

And once we pick an approach, will that be something that Cal will likely participate in?

---

Why set compensation for college athletes at all. Let them make as much money as they can or want to make from sources other than the universities themselves, and leave it at that. If Nike or adidas wants to pay a basketball player to endorse their shoes, let them. If a college athlete has a million followers on Instagram and can sell ads on their Instagram account for (reportedly) $15,000 to 30,000 each, let them do that.

---

---

NIL will not relieve schools of their Title IX obligations to offer equal opportunities to women. Not as to payments but as it equates to sport offerings. So money spent on male athletes would not be available to support mandated women's sports, putting further strain on AD budgets. I also question whether the Nikes of the world won't reduce their payments to schools if they are also spending big bucks in individual NIL contracts. NIL may be a bonanza for a handful of star players but, ultimately, an albatross for many schools struggling to balance their athletic budgets.

I think boosters will be the ones paying the players through endorsements, not big corporations -- though obviously a Trevor Lawrence will get some serious attention on a national level.

Nobody outside the Cal circle is paying Garbers, though ...

BearSD said:

---

Paying the best basketball and football players as much as Nike or other sponsors would pay is very unlikely to be profitable for an athletic department that supports 20-plus varsity sports.

And paying them far less than what commercial interests will pay is unlikely to have much of an impact. If Nike is paying the next Zion $500,000 to play one year at Duke, then the next Zion won't care much if Duke offers him $10,000 on top of Nike's $500,000.

So, IMO, forget about the schools handing small checks to athletes. Just keep hands off and let the athletes accept whatever anyone else wants to give them.

---

Many players won't be getting $500k from Nike, and even those that do won't turn down their $10k salary. At least they would donate it to charity

And in a free market I don't think it will only be $10k

So far no one has offered an answer but some complain that we should pay the players

I'm simply asking how we decide the salary amount without violating antitrust?

HoopDreams said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Paying the best basketball and football players as much as Nike or other sponsors would pay is very unlikely to be profitable for an athletic department that supports 20-plus varsity sports.

And paying them far less than what commercial interests will pay is unlikely to have much of an impact. If Nike is paying the next Zion $500,000 to play one year at Duke, then the next Zion won't care much if Duke offers him $10,000 on top of Nike's $500,000.

So, IMO, forget about the schools handing small checks to athletes. Just keep hands off and let the athletes accept whatever anyone else wants to give them.

---

Many players won't be getting $500k from Nike, and even those that do won't turn down their $10k salary. At least they would donate it to charity

And in a free market I don't think it will only be $10k

So far no one has offered an answer but some complain that we should pay the players

I'm simply asking how we decide the salary amount without violating antitrust?

---

I think you're putting the cart about a mile in front of the horse. Lot's of holes in your straw man - starting with asking for a simple answer to a complex and unprecedented proposal. It will evolve over time (or not) and I doubt you or I will be anywhere near the top of list in deciding salary amounts.

If I read you correctly, you are assuming that colleges will have the power of deciding salaries? I doubt that will happen., but please confirm.

My original post/question was responding to those who say college sports has been exploiting players and that they should be paid. The issue is also being reviewed by the NCAA, many States and the Supreme Court. Many of the arguments are that the NCAA are colluding with colleges to artificially hold down compensation of athletes

The new NIL rules will address only part of this issue. Compensation from the universities directly to athletes still needs to be addressed unless, the scholarships, room and board, athletic training, stipends, and value of personal brand promotion are deemed to not be sufficient free market compensation

(I support the new NIL and transfer rules, but want to understand what can be changed to reduce the impact to competitive balance)

So I offered 3 market approaches to determine fair wages.

Then I asked, what people will think Cal would do in that situation

Cal will have to factor in the University mission, budget, TitleIX and many other factors to arrive at their conclusion.

Competitive balance also needs to be a factor, especially after 100% free agency all the time.

My question is NOT a strawman.

I just don't see any solution to move to what would effectively be a semi-pro franchise at Cal

So I'm asking the people who keep bringing this up to offer viable solutions, instead of just complain

BeachedBear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Paying the best basketball and football players as much as Nike or other sponsors would pay is very unlikely to be profitable for an athletic department that supports 20-plus varsity sports.

And paying them far less than what commercial interests will pay is unlikely to have much of an impact. If Nike is paying the next Zion $500,000 to play one year at Duke, then the next Zion won't care much if Duke offers him $10,000 on top of Nike's $500,000.

So, IMO, forget about the schools handing small checks to athletes. Just keep hands off and let the athletes accept whatever anyone else wants to give them.

---

Many players won't be getting $500k from Nike, and even those that do won't turn down their $10k salary. At least they would donate it to charity

And in a free market I don't think it will only be $10k

So far no one has offered an answer but some complain that we should pay the players

I'm simply asking how we decide the salary amount without violating antitrust?

---

I think you're putting the cart about a mile in front of the horse. Lot's of holes in your straw man - starting with asking for a simple answer to a complex and unprecedented proposal. It will evolve over time (or not) and I doubt you or I will be anywhere near the top of list in deciding salary amounts.

If I read you correctly, you are assuming that colleges will have the power of deciding salaries? I doubt that will happen., but please confirm.

---

Student-athletes should be treated like any other students when it comes to their ability to work off-campus.

As long as they are making progress towards their degree and abiding by the rules they should be allowed to play.

What someone pays them for work they are doing on their own time is not the University's (or the NCAA's) business. Where the University and NCAA should step in is if kids aren't in good academic standing and/or not graduating.

If a boosters want to give them gifts so be it as long as it is reported to the IRS.

There aren't that many marketable athletes in college ball and the most marketable ones go to the pros anyway as soon as they can so I don't see how it would be a huge problem except the kids might make some money along the way. The Duke's and Kentucky's of the world are ALREADY drawing those kids. Maybe more of them would take a risk on a school like Cal if they knew they'd be getting paid either way.

HoopDreams said:

---

So far no one has offered an answer but some complain that we should pay the players

---

You just don't like the answers that people offer, so you pretend no one is offering an answer? SMH.

Bear Insider should sponsor a go fund me to rent a player!

BearSD said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

So far no one has offered an answer but some complain that we should pay the players

---

You just don't like the answers that people offer, so you pretend no one is offering an answer? SMH.

---

I only see responses saying colleges shouldn't pay players.

I'm not advocating that colleges do pay players.

But there are some posters who say colleges are exploiting players UNLESS we pay them, so I asked HOW ... and haven't seen any responses

that's why I say no one has answered my question

HoopDreams said:

---

BearSD said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

So far no one has offered an answer but some complain that we should pay the players

---

You just don't like the answers that people offer, so you pretend no one is offering an answer? SMH.

---

I only see responses saying colleges shouldn't pay players.

I'm not advocating that colleges do pay players.

But there are some posters who say colleges are exploiting players UNLESS we pay them, so I asked HOW ... and haven't seen any responses

that's why I say no one has answered my question

---

How? By using their talents to make money but refusing to let them earn a salary.

Colleges don't need to pay players, but they can't do that and then ALSO not let them earn their own money.

dimitrig said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

BearSD said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

So far no one has offered an answer but some complain that we should pay the players

---

You just don't like the answers that people offer, so you pretend no one is offering an answer? SMH.

---

I only see responses saying colleges shouldn't pay players.

I'm not advocating that colleges do pay players.

But there are some posters who say colleges are exploiting players UNLESS we pay them, so I asked HOW ... and haven't seen any responses

that's why I say no one has answered my question

---

How? By using their talents to make money but refusing to let them earn a salary.

Colleges don't need to pay players, but they can't do that and then ALSO not let them earn their own money.

---

I've said this a couple times in this discussion:

"(I support the new NIL and transfer rules, but want to understand what can be changed to reduce the impact to competitive balance)"

Again, I'm asking those who think we are exploiting players how they will determine player salaries, even after we allow them to earn money with NIL and sponsorships.

they are the ones complaining. I'm just asking for their solutions

HoopDreams said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

BearSD said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

So far no one has offered an answer but some complain that we should pay the players

---

You just don't like the answers that people offer, so you pretend no one is offering an answer? SMH.

---

I only see responses saying colleges shouldn't pay players.

I'm not advocating that colleges do pay players.

But there are some posters who say colleges are exploiting players UNLESS we pay them, so I asked HOW ... and haven't seen any responses

that's why I say no one has answered my question

---

How? By using their talents to make money but refusing to let them earn a salary.

Colleges don't need to pay players, but they can't do that and then ALSO not let them earn their own money.

---

I've said this a couple times in this discussion:

"(I support the new NIL and transfer rules, but want to understand what can be changed to reduce the impact to competitive balance)"

Again, I'm asking those who think we are exploiting players how they will determine player salaries, even after we allow them to earn money with NIL and sponsorships.

they are the ones complaining. I'm just asking for their solutions

---

How? By letting the free market determine it.

Universities should not be paying players any money directly except for their scholarships and a stipend.

Boosters should pay the players. Colleges should treat athletes like any other student, who can get a job paying whatever the market will bear.

That finesses the exploitation aspect because now students have the opportunity to profit from their skills, which they were arbitrarily denied in the past. To me, the denial of the opportunity to generate income was more important than the issue of exploitation, which only applies to a few athletes.

And even if the boosters won't pay an athlete, he or she should be able to market the college experience to run camps, clinics, etc., and make a connection to a university part of the brand.

Thanks for the responses. At least I understand what some people mean by exploitation and 'free market'

By the way, many players and a bill in congress are pushing for allowing players to have collective bargaining (unionize).

If they do unionize they will be negotiating salaries from universities, and some (including Pac12players) have asked for a 50% revenue share.

That's what they view as "free market "

If Cal is required to pay players a salary or 50% (or 25%) revenue share than I think Cal will drop out. Maybe only the USC, Alabamas and Texas's of the world will remain

So some, including players think of 'exploitation' and 'free market' much different.

NIL will be approved in July, which is good, but that is only the next step.

Of the 3 options for setting free market compensation, I think collective bargaining (similar to pro sports) is the only way to ultimately solve this

HoopDreams said:

---

The new NIL rules may do that, so that's not the question

Some people think that schools should directly pay players for their basketball services. So my question is how should schools determine player compensation and gave three free market options

---

I'm not sure NIL will lead down the road to perdition, and it is a minor step of economic freedom that most schools will follow. Call it an experiment before the floodgates open and players are simply paid. It may mean some donors will pay players directly, and not the school, with lower donations to schools, making football and basketball less lucrative. But maybe not that much less lucrative that the model for the school doesn't work (see my post above). There may be other issues, but schools will adopt. For example, USC apparently is making it's access to Hollywood a big part of the pitch to recruiting players. I'm not sure how much "we have access to Google or Apple" works on 17 years old with aspirations to the NFL. I can see where Nike U might. But overall the view is NIL will not mean huge bucks, except for a few players (you guys can google the articles that suggest this).

For paying players, football and basketball probably will have too many "philosophical" issues for schools like Cal or Furd to participate.

Instead, you probably would see some form of super-conference that might set some rules with the agreement f some sort of player association. And yes, the players get called employees, etc. In some ways the payments are just now above the table.

HoopDreams said:

---

BearSD said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

So far no one has offered an answer but some complain that we should pay the players

---

You just don't like the answers that people offer, so you pretend no one is offering an answer? SMH.

---

I only see responses saying colleges shouldn't pay players.

I'm not advocating that colleges do pay players.

But there are some posters who say colleges are exploiting players UNLESS we pay them, so I asked HOW ... and haven't seen any responses

that's why I say no one has answered my question

---

It may help to specifically name those posters from whom you are looking for answers. Otherwise the rest of us will keep trying to help you out and frustrate you.