I did not know that Monty was on that panel.

In terms of meaningful change--don't hold your breath.

Sadly, this is likely to be much ado about nothing. Many of the reforms are logical and have been discussed forever but for a variety of reasons, the NCAA lacks the ability to do much about it. Many of the proposals rely on entities outside of the NCAA's sphere of influence (NBA, NBAPA, AAU, shoe companies, etc) and many of the proposals account for nothing more than bluffs to those entities. Does anyone really think if the NBA failed to end OAD, the NCAA would curtail freshman eligibility and let DeAndre Ayton or Marvin Bagley sit on the bench all year? Um, no.

And for those elements the NCAA can implement, it lacks the executional skill and ability to do these things. Take enforcement for example. The NCAA is feckless at enforcing its own rules, and enforcement lies at the root of many of the problems in the game that the report seeks to address. And yet, there's zip in the report about enforcement and compliance.

Fortunately, the NBA seems inclined to end OAD in 2020 which will be a positive step forward. I also think HS and college players will allowed to have representation though that pretty much exists already today, just in the shadows. It may be formalized with rule changes but the NCAA lacks any real ability to supervise or accredit agents, so we're basically where we are at today, just with less of a cloud.

Sadly, this report was underwhelming. Seems like a collection and re-hash of popular 'finger in dike' type solutions.

That is probably because for almost all constituents' perspective, IT'S NOT BROKEN. Many just see a scandal that needs addressing - not a problem that needs fixing.

Personally, I think something more disruptive and holistic is needed. MBB is not completely broken, but it IS breaking and heading in the wrong direction. The problems, IMHO are two-fold: First, the amount and control of money into the system (some of these were addressed, but not effectively enough). Second, the inherent structure of NCAA/University Presidents/Conferences. They have evolved and adapted to my first point, but are ill equipped or properly structured to handle the existing situation or potential changes.

But that's me. I like the games, the atmosphere and connection to my University. None of those are directly related to TV contracts, Shoe Companies, Recruiting scandals or the money that surrounds them. Others are more interested in TV contracts, Recruiting wars, stepping stone to the NBA, sports fashion, coaching salaries, etc. . . Nobody walks away from money.

I feel I am in the minority and will wait it out until it gets intolerable and then step away (like so many already have).

:gobears

And there are 60 players drafted each year; a lot of false pride going on here.

There are a small handful of elite players that are worth a lot of money and forcing them to go to college delays (unfairly) their ability to monetize that value. That can, will and should change. But for 99% of college players, they drastically overstate their contribution to the overall valuation of college basketball and from a purely economic standpoint the average college player is probably already over-compensated for their skill and value contribution. Just because you work for Amazon or Apple doesn't mean that every employee contributes in a significant or even measurable way to its overall financial valuation and should be compensated as such. And that's the fallacy with a lot of these "pay the players" arguments.

Even if you completely remove the top 100 HS players, the value, finances, viewership and interest in the NCAA will remain what it is. It's not players driving that value..well, in 99% of cases. If players want to be compensated by agents or shoe companies or for their likeness, I have no issue with that. That's fair and should be allowed. But the idea that the NCAA or schools themselves should pay players is entirely wrong from an economic standpoint (not to mention the total impracticalities of executing something like it, the Title IX compliance problems and other issues).

Many players are in for a rude awakening when they play in the very high level G-League in front of nobody, watched by nobody and getting $30-40K a year. I suspect many will regret passing on college opportunities not only for the exposure and skill development but also the personal development and even just being the BMOC. Nevertheless, I'd love to see some of the financial modeling for some of these new proposed leagues that seek to pay players "fairly." I'm very curious to see where the money will come from to compensate them. And I can't imagine that any of these leagues will ever offer an overall experience that can be matched by the college experience in a myriad of ways. Guess we'll see.

TheSouseFamily said:

---

There are a small handful of elite players that are worth a lot of money and forcing them to go to college delays (unfairly) their ability to monetize that value. That can, will and should change. But for 99% of college players, they drastically overstate their contribution to the overall valuation of college basketball and from a purely economic standpoint the average college player is probably already over-compensated for their skill and value contribution. Just because you work for Amazon or Apple doesn't mean that every employee contributes in a significant or even measurable way to its overall financial valuation and should be compensated as such.

---

At Amazon and Apple, market forces get to decide that the compensation of employees who contribute significantly to the overall success of the company is greater than that of other employees.

Why not let the market make that same decision for college athletes?

I'm all for that, SD. If an agent or shoe company wants to place a bet on a player's future earnings, I'd say go for it. Same for a sponsorship/marketing/use of likeness deal.

But, I'm not sure from a practical standpoint how a university would compensate players in a market-oriented way (again, leaving aside Title IX and other issues). Would you pay Austin McCullough the same as you'd pay Darius McNeill? What would you pay Jordan Brown and who decides that? And on what basis would you justify paying them anything at all beyond the significant expenses the university already incurs on their behalf? If the market-based compensation level for a G-League or international player is $30K, what's the market justification for Cal to spend $50K/year on that player (or whatever the correct number is) and also additional compensation on top of it?

TheSouseFamily said:

---

There are a small handful of elite players that are worth a lot of money and forcing them to go to college delays (unfairly) their ability to monetize that value. That can, will and should change. But for 99% of college players, they drastically overstate their contribution to the overall valuation of college basketball and from a purely economic standpoint the average college player is probably already over-compensated for their skill and value contribution. Just because you work for Amazon or Apple doesn't mean that every employee contributes in a significant or even measurable way to its overall financial valuation and should be compensated as such. And that's the fallacy with a lot of these "pay the players" arguments.

Even if you completely remove the top 100 HS players, the value, finances, viewership and interest in the NCAA will remain what it is. It's not players driving that value..well, in 99% of cases. If players want to be compensated by agents or shoe companies or for their likeness, I have no issue with that. That's fair and should be allowed. But the idea that the NCAA or schools themselves should pay players is entirely wrong from an economic standpoint (not to mention the total impracticalities of executing something like it, the Title IX compliance problems and other issues).

Many players are in for a rude awakening when they play in the very high level G-League in front of nobody, watched by nobody and getting $30-40K a year. I suspect many will regret passing on college opportunities not only for the exposure and skill development but also the personal development and even just being the BMOC. Nevertheless, I'd love to see some of the financial modeling for some of these new proposed leagues that seek to pay players "fairly." I'm very curious to see where the money will come from to compensate them. And I can't imagine that any of these leagues will ever offer an overall experience that can be matched by the college experience in a myriad of ways. Guess we'll see.

---

Good points.

The players may deserve to be paid, but the college system and NCAA is not the mechanism to pay them. Removing some of the obstacles that 'require' a person to play a year in college and allow them to play elsewher is probably a step in the right direction.

And I agree that removing the top 100 HS players will not affect NCAA (or my enjoyment of it) much at all. Let's give it a shot.

My take on the report is that it is full of righteous indignation and not a little hand-wringing. As for the recommendations: meh.

1. Get rid of OAD--the NBA might do it; NCAA can't. The two suggestions are interesting, but no one is going to make freshmen ineligible again and to do so would be unfair to the players who do intend to stay in school. The idea of holding scholarships so that if a player leaves, his scholarship is frozen for the 4 years he would have been there (or 2 or 3) is intriguing, but probably unworkable. Of course, what do you do about players who leave to transfer? Would Cal have been penalized for Coleman?

2. Lifetime bans and NCAA policing academic fraud. Both excellent ideas. Both not going to happen. UNC on 5 year probation??? Give me a break.

3. The NCAA having its own summer league for high school kids to avoid the shoe company ones. Also not going to happen. Since when did the NCAA spend money on anything but itself?

Bottom line: there's big money in college hoops and that trumps everything else. This report is window-dressing.

Everyone talks about the baseball model but that is more rent control, intended to favor the schools

The minor leagues are the d-league and overseas

But few players choose those routes

Why?

Probably because the best option is to grow their brand, audition in front of scouts, the get elite level basketball and S&C training, oh and to get free room and board

Some even want the education

In a true market economy new entrants will fill the gaps when its profitable to do so

Players will choose what's best for them of the available options

Today there are really few options out of HS. The NBA should end the 19 year old requirement. But that would only effect a half-dozen players

A Ball league will only be a niche at best

We could develop a the euro model yet I never hear about that

Multiple pro leagues that have different levels of teams. Players are paid various sums of money, but none at the NBA level

More college players end up in these leagues after college anyway, including MANY extra-Cal players ... Singer, Roger, Domingo are the most recent

Seems many players who currently go to college now, would choose those teams over college. The ones who choose college will get the getter training and brand development, but they don't have to go to classes if that's not their thing

But there isn't any euro-type leagues here, because they can't pay players enough to draw them away from the college option

Colleges won't pay players, nor should they. They offer a certain deal. Players should take it if they think it's their best option. However right now it's almost their only option in the US.

If paying players was required, Cal should drop out of D1. I would guess other schools would too.