The stench of college athletics is no longer even noticed by "fans".

The issue is should the colleges be the "farm" system? No college is going to claim that its purpose is to be a farm system for professional sports. No athlete is forced to participate in college athletics. The athletes are not employees of the colleges. A football player who goes to Alabama to play football in anticipation of playing in the NFL is seeking a platform the opportunity to showcase his abilities. HOW MUCH VALUE DOES HE GET FROM THAT PLATFORM???? Maybe look up the number of NFL players who never played in college. Maybe determine the cost to an individual to arrange for a private try out without having played in college. The player gets a tremendous amount of value from the platform before one even considers the value of the coaching, environment and classes. Additionally, under the prevailing analysis, the entire program is part of the value to the player and his platform, thus, all revenue available should go to the program to enhance its efficacy and thereby enhance the "platform" for the player. So what is the beef? If a 10,000,000 dollar a year coach enhances the program and gives the player a better chance of being on a winning team and getting post season honors, etc., then from the player's point of view, he should welcome the program paying such a coach. Certainly that player could never afford such a coach on his own nickel no matter what the college would pay him.

To be clear, my view is that the colleges should get out of professionalism in sports. I would eliminate sports scholarships (some irony there). The result would be a deflationary spiral on coaches fees, the arms race for venues and the population of non-student athletes on the campus. Notwithstanding, if the players are going to be paid, then they should contribute to the costs of their platform. The current system does exactly that.

RJABear said:

---

Listened to XM college sports talk radio this morning.

Chris (the hosts) basically said

• No-one cares
• Everyone cheats (Arizona, LSU, etc)
• Schools with serious athletic aspirations all cheat
• The rules are still the rules
• He feels bad - schools that try to play within the rules are at a competitive disadvantage

---

It happens more often than it's uncovered, but the idea that 'most' or even 'many' schools "cheat" (paying players) is an unfounded and ridiculous claim. Thus the "uneven" playing field and "poor schools that have to compete with cheaters" is without merit.

If you're a losing program, it's not because of Sean Miller and those like him. It's because your program sucks on its own merit.

Losing program? I can agree to that. Top 25? Nope. Virtually every top program is implicated in some way and those that aren't are openly discussed as having some sort of other deal. I do not believe Addidas is the only shoe company funneling $ to top 100 recruits. Nike and UA have to be dirty too. They just weren't caught yet.

MilleniaBear said:

---

Losing program? I can agree to that. Top 25? Nope. Virtually every top program is implicated in some way and those that aren't are openly discussed as having some sort of other deal. I do not believe Addidas is the only shoe company funneling $ to top 100 recruits. Nike and UA have to be dirty too. They just weren't caught yet.

---

Evidence, please.

BTW, of the schools connected to the scandal -- Auburn, Miami, Louisville, USC, Arizona, South Carolina, Okl St -- only two of them made the NCAA tourney in 2017-18, one of them lost in the 1st rd (AZ) and the other the 2nd rd (AU)

What's been reported does not indicate any reliable barrier to having a national program if you're absent from this bribery ring. It clearly is not helping many of the teams reach Top 25 status that are allegedly willing to pay for players

bearchamp said:

---

Cheating will go on anyway. I have known college players on the "take" from as many as four agents at once; when the players did not "need" more money to live. In one case the player was wealthy. Getting paid is an ego stroke. Paying is an ego stroke for the boosters. Paying the players is not the answer.

---

Totally. Give up your paycheck. It's just an ego stroke.

Anyone else see the mention that kicker joe was alledgedly going around and offering $$$ - 50k for Bruce Bowen Jr according to the Sr. Was he sweaty sean's alternate bag man?

concordtom said:

---

bearchamp said:

---

The open market already exists: in Europe, Asia, Australia, NBA, etc. What is suggested here is that the colleges go directly the into professional sports business. Professional sports is unlikely to be found in any college charter and also unlikely, as a matter of law, to be supportable by tax dollars. The real problem is the colleges trying to be "not quite" in the professional sports business. The answer is to get out of "professional sports" and return to academics. Also, athletes getting paid "above board" will not eliminate "under the table" payments. Finally, what does the college do when its "one and done" superstar who it is paying several million dollars per year turns out to be Ivan Rabb and not Zion Williamson?

---

Good points.
But what then is the solution?

---

It's right there in BearChamp's post. Get out of scholarship athletics. It's a joke how corrupt it is. Go back to sports with real students who are admitted on academic merit.

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

concordtom said:

---

bearchamp said:

---

The open market already exists: in Europe, Asia, Australia, NBA, etc. What is suggested here is that the colleges go directly the into professional sports business. Professional sports is unlikely to be found in any college charter and also unlikely, as a matter of law, to be supportable by tax dollars. The real problem is the colleges trying to be "not quite" in the professional sports business. The answer is to get out of "professional sports" and return to academics. Also, athletes getting paid "above board" will not eliminate "under the table" payments. Finally, what does the college do when its "one and done" superstar who it is paying several million dollars per year turns out to be Ivan Rabb and not Zion Williamson?

---

Good points.
But what then is the solution?

---

It's right there in BearChamp's post. Get out of scholarship athletics. It's a joke how corrupt it is. Go back to sports with real students who are admitted on academic merit.

---

That would be really interesting ... but almost impossible. Even in Division III, with no scholarships and strict rules about practice time, etc., the competitive nature of human beings creates a drive to succeed. And I coached one player who got financial help to play D-III (an academic grant, I think) and there are always ways to encourage athletes to come to your school.

The purest form of sport at the college level is intramurals, and even then ...

Way back when, just after I had graduated from UCSB, a high school friend of mine was the quarterback for Chi Psi, so I started playing intramurals. A couple years later, we won the touch football title, and I think three of our players actually went to Cal. My friend wound up playing for eight or nine years before hanging it up ...

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

concordtom said:

---

bearchamp said:

---

The open market already exists: in Europe, Asia, Australia, NBA, etc. What is suggested here is that the colleges go directly the into professional sports business. Professional sports is unlikely to be found in any college charter and also unlikely, as a matter of law, to be supportable by tax dollars. The real problem is the colleges trying to be "not quite" in the professional sports business. The answer is to get out of "professional sports" and return to academics. Also, athletes getting paid "above board" will not eliminate "under the table" payments. Finally, what does the college do when its "one and done" superstar who it is paying several million dollars per year turns out to be Ivan Rabb and not Zion Williamson?

---

Good points.
But what then is the solution?

---

It's right there in BearChamp's post. Get out of scholarship athletics. It's a joke how corrupt it is. Go back to sports with real students who are admitted on academic merit.

---

You'd have to go waaaaaaaaaaaay back in history to get to that point. The conference that preceded the Pac-12 broke up in the 1950s because several schools had boosters who were paying football players, and then the schools whose players were getting paid started a new conference that is now called the Pac-12.

More likely you couldn't get back to such a place anyway. Ivy League schools don't offer athletic scholarships, but admit many athletes who don't meet the regular admission standards of the school, a loophole that was exploited by Rick Singer and the rich families who paid him to arrange phony "recruited athlete" designations for their kids.

BearSD said:

---

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

concordtom said:

---

bearchamp said:

---

The open market already exists: in Europe, Asia, Australia, NBA, etc. What is suggested here is that the colleges go directly the into professional sports business. Professional sports is unlikely to be found in any college charter and also unlikely, as a matter of law, to be supportable by tax dollars. The real problem is the colleges trying to be "not quite" in the professional sports business. The answer is to get out of "professional sports" and return to academics. Also, athletes getting paid "above board" will not eliminate "under the table" payments. Finally, what does the college do when its "one and done" superstar who it is paying several million dollars per year turns out to be Ivan Rabb and not Zion Williamson?

---

Good points.
But what then is the solution?

---

It's right there in BearChamp's post. Get out of scholarship athletics. It's a joke how corrupt it is. Go back to sports with real students who are admitted on academic merit.

---

You'd have to go waaaaaaaaaaaay back in history to get to that point. The conference that preceded the Pac-12 broke up in the 1950s because several schools had boosters who were paying football players, and then the schools whose players were getting paid started a new conference that is now called the Pac-12.

More likely you couldn't get back to such a place anyway. Ivy League schools don't offer athletic scholarships, but admit many athletes who don't meet the regular admission standards of the school, a loophole that was exploited by Rick Singer and the rich families who paid him to arrange phony "recruited athlete" designations for their kids.

---

Thanks. I've been wanting to post something like this, but was not up to doing the research. I've been involved with youth, high school and college bball since the early eighties. It has been corrupt the entire time. And back when I started, the people involved since the 40s and 50s said the same thing. If you look at college football in the 20's (almost a hundred years ago) - corrupt. I think the only difference lately is the amount of money involved (also higher relative to the economy) and the agencies have morphed into shoe companies and runners.

I'll also re-iterate my constant rant, that most colleges are ill-equipped to be in the multi-billion dollar entertainment business. I agree with FuzzyWuzzy that we should get out of the game, but it won't eliminate corruption, just lessen it - which is probably a good thing.

Wasn't it Paul Hornung who allegedly took a paycut when he left Notre Dame for the NFL?

Hugh McElhenny University of Washington and SF 49ers:

After denying rumors for decades, in 2004 McElhenny confirmed that he received improper financial benefits from the University of Washington during his time there, which included a $300 monthly check. Per NCAA rules, the most a college can offer an athlete is a summer job and a scholarship covering boarding and tuition. A popular (albeit usually jocular) spin on the rumor was that McElhenny essentially took a pay cut when he left the university to play for the 49ers. This was not entirely untrue; all payments accounted for, including legitimate ones, McElhenny claimed he and his wife received a combined $10,000 a year while at Washington with the 49ers, his rookie salary was worth $7,000.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_McElhenny

ClayK said:

---

Does anyone believe this is an outlier?

After all, UNC -- which cherishes its academic reputation -- set up bogus classes for athletes (and others who were clever enough to get in on the scam) and didn't even care. When caught, they fired the women's basketball coach, and of course the NCAA did nothing.

I will repeat that I believe most of this stems from not paying workers who generate a tremendous amount of income. If high school and college athletes were able to negotiate contracts and be paid whatever the market decided, then much of this corruption would disappear. (Note that I'm not saying all college athletes should be paid -- only those who generate enough interest on the open market to draw a salary.)

---

How can that work? What happens to the players who don't get paid? They will claim discrimination, and lawsuits will surface. They won't pass the ball to the players who are getting paid, will they? And if you pay the boys, you will have to pay the girls, according to Title IX. They are not workers. They are students. They are already being paid by full scholarships, and cushy part-time jobs they are given. Give me a break.

concordtom said:

---

RJABear said:

---

Get rid of the one-and-done rule. Let the kids who are capable go pro as soon as possible.

I would watch the same amount of college basketball with or without John Wall, Zion Williamson, and Anthony Davis.

---

I starred your third sentence.
But your first sentence won't fix the cheating.
You gotta pay the kids their market value. Otherwise the incentive to cheat is huge.
If you are a poor family, $100,000 is massive. But if you pay $100,000 on top of that, it's not as motivating to cheat and risk. Basic needs can be met with the initial pay amount.

---

If you pay them, you will have to pay every player on the team, schollie holder or not, or you will face charges of discrimination. You will have to pay the players the same pay regardless of race, etc. You will have to pay the women players. So will say Title IX. And when the transgenders get their teams (that may be coming sooner than you think), you will have to pay them. You will have to add new staff to negotiate and administer all employment contracts with athletes. Where are you getting the money to pay for all this? Cal is still in debt over a football stadium and if basketball remains in the tank, it won't have enough attendance to stay out of debt, let alone turn a profit for the school.

SFCityBear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

RJABear said:

---

Get rid of the one-and-done rule. Let the kids who are capable go pro as soon as possible.

I would watch the same amount of college basketball with or without John Wall, Zion Williamson, and Anthony Davis.

---

I starred your third sentence.
But your first sentence won't fix the cheating.
You gotta pay the kids their market value. Otherwise the incentive to cheat is huge.
If you are a poor family, $100,000 is massive. But if you pay $100,000 on top of that, it's not as motivating to cheat and risk. Basic needs can be met with the initial pay amount.

---

If you pay them, you will have to pay every player on the team, schollie holder or not, or you will face charges of discrimination. You will have to pay the players the same pay regardless of race, etc. You will have to pay the women players. So will say Title IX. And when the transgenders get their teams (that may be coming sooner than you think), you will have to pay them. You will have to add new staff to negotiate and administer all employment contracts with athletes. Where are you getting the money to pay for all this? Cal is still in debt over a football stadium and if basketball remains in the tank, it won't have enough attendance to stay out of debt, let alone turn a profit for the school.

---

You got something against trangeneder people?

I don't understand why everyone on the team would have to be paid.
I don't understand why football income generating players should have to pay women. It's a different thing.

I don't understand why you think football should subsidize golf or gymnastics.

You ALWAYS go back to an argument that says "we can't pay market rates for players (we must keep our NCAA amateur bullshi/ monopoly) because we need to steal their money for others."

Football income generating players should collectively strike. Where's the labor union to break the monopoly?

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

concordtom said:

---

bearchamp said:

---

The open market already exists: in Europe, Asia, Australia, NBA, etc. What is suggested here is that the colleges go directly the into professional sports business. Professional sports is unlikely to be found in any college charter and also unlikely, as a matter of law, to be supportable by tax dollars. The real problem is the colleges trying to be "not quite" in the professional sports business. The answer is to get out of "professional sports" and return to academics. Also, athletes getting paid "above board" will not eliminate "under the table" payments. Finally, what does the college do when its "one and done" superstar who it is paying several million dollars per year turns out to be Ivan Rabb and not Zion Williamson?

---

Good points.
But what then is the solution?

---

It's right there in BearChamp's post. Get out of scholarship athletics. It's a joke how corrupt it is. Go back to sports with real students who are admitted on academic merit.

---

Ivy West

concordtom said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

RJABear said:

---

Get rid of the one-and-done rule. Let the kids who are capable go pro as soon as possible.

I would watch the same amount of college basketball with or without John Wall, Zion Williamson, and Anthony Davis.

---

I starred your third sentence.
But your first sentence won't fix the cheating.
You gotta pay the kids their market value. Otherwise the incentive to cheat is huge.
If you are a poor family, $100,000 is massive. But if you pay $100,000 on top of that, it's not as motivating to cheat and risk. Basic needs can be met with the initial pay amount.

---

If you pay them, you will have to pay every player on the team, schollie holder or not, or you will face charges of discrimination. You will have to pay the players the same pay regardless of race, etc. You will have to pay the women players. So will say Title IX. And when the transgenders get their teams (that may be coming sooner than you think), you will have to pay them. You will have to add new staff to negotiate and administer all employment contracts with athletes. Where are you getting the money to pay for all this? Cal is still in debt over a football stadium and if basketball remains in the tank, it won't have enough attendance to stay out of debt, let alone turn a profit for the school.

---

You got something against trangeneder people?

I don't understand why everyone on the team would have to be paid.
I don't understand why football income generating players should have to pay women. It's a different thing.

I don't understand why you think football should subsidize golf or gymnastics.

You ALWAYS go back to an argument that says "we can't pay market rates for players (we must keep our NCAA amateur bullshi/ monopoly) because we need to steal their money for others."

Football income generating players should collectively strike. Where's the labor union to break the monopoly?

---

Where did I say anything against transgender people? Show me where I did. You also need to spell it right.

If you pay male players, Title IX will require you pay the female players. Football gets a special dispensation because there are no female football teams. But Title IX requires that expenditures for women's sports be equal to the expenditures for men's sports, or at least that is how I understand it. And in case you don't realize it, there are transgender athletes. One was recently required to reduce her testosterone levels to continue competing, I believe. There will be pressure I think on the NCAA and other bodies to develop ways for these athletes to compete on the teams they choose to compete on, and if there are enough of them to form teams and compete against each other, then there will be an interest or pressure for the NCAA and other bodies to provide a framework and rules for these new leagues. If transgenders are pressing and successful in obtaining rights, or rather recognized by society that these are their rights, then sports must be included in the discussion.

You say "I ALWAYS go back to an argument that says....." and then you put some argument in quotes which means I said it, and I never said any such things. You should be more careful when you quote people. Even us old guys can remember much of what we said or didn't say. I don't even understand the argument you say I made.

Where did I say I think football should subsidize golf or gymnastics. Where the hell did you get that? (Actually, it is an interesting idea. Thank you for coming up with it. I'll think about it.)

You haven't answered my question: Where are you going to get the money to pay players? Ya gonna raise the ticket prices again? We only won 3 games in the conference last season, so there may not be enough butts in the seats to support that plan.

Socialism only works until you run out of other people's money - Margaret Thatcher

ClayK said:

---

I will repeat that I believe most of this stems from not paying workers who generate a tremendous amount of income. If high school and college athletes were able to negotiate contracts and be paid whatever the market decided, then much of this corruption would disappear. (Note that I'm not saying all college athletes should be paid -- only those who generate enough interest on the open market to draw a salary.)

---

It wouldn't make an ounce of difference. There will always be people willing to ask for / demand more than they are legally given and there will always be people willing to pay it if they think it will help them win.

Why does everyone have to be paid?

Look at the system now: Women's basketball has 15 scholarships and they have to be full scholarships. I don't know for a fact, but I'm guessing women's tennis does not have 15 scholarships and none are full. So why don't they sue?

This wouldn't penalize anyone. The system as it stands would remain in place, except that universities/boosters/whoever can pay athletes on top of their scholarships, and athletes would be able to have agents advise them. (And speaking of that, why aren't high school athletes allowed to have agents? What difference would it make to colleges, except of course that high school athletes would now have advocates who understand the system?()

Let the market decide who's worth what. Let colleges decide what markets they want to focus on. Cal, for example, might decide to invest all that it can in men's basketball and let football slide -- or vice versa. Or decide that it will excel in Olympic sports.

Why shouldn't an elite high school quarterback, who could generate millions of dollars for a college, be paid for his labor? And if he shouldn't, then why should a coach be paid millions?

ClayK said:

---

Why does everyone have to be paid?

Look at the system now: Women's basketball has 15 scholarships and they have to be full scholarships. I don't know for a fact, but I'm guessing women's tennis does not have 15 scholarships and none are full. So why don't they sue?

This wouldn't penalize anyone. The system as it stands would remain in place, except that universities/boosters/whoever can pay athletes on top of their scholarships, and athletes would be able to have agents advise them.

---

Seems like it would be better for legal reasons to keep the universities out of the business of paying the athletes. Keep the rule that universities and their employees still can't pay the athletes, but permit athletes to accept any payment not provided by the university, just as Olympic athletes can accept payments not provided by their government or national Olympic committee.

That would work too ... let the boosters form a non-profit, and have the non-profit negotiate with players. If the boosters don't want to do it, it doesn't happen.