FWST: TCU athletic director ‘really nervous’ about California’s new Fair Pay to Play Act

[Tumbleweed]

Back and forth this will go but eventually the ncaa will give in to some kind of arrangement. Wonder if we have seen the last of huge, over the top coaching salaries.

 

[Hemingway]

Guys, the really good college athletes have been paid for long time. Who cares? Let’s get some MaMa’s pizza endorsements going and some oil and gas money going. We got this. Remember the White Wolf

 

[Christcu]

It's totally different if a school can offer legal $50k autograph sessions to players as enticement to go to school there. I mean, that wouldn't even be in the same ballpark in terms of competitive balance vs what is in place now.

Why are you so supportive of players getting paid? Do you honestly think the players are the ones who are the valuable assets here? Players are completely interchangeable, that is proven year after year. If anything, the courts should be going after the NFL for not allowing 18 year olds to play in their league, not forcing the NCAA to modify the amateur athlete model.

Bingo....post of the week

 

[DeuceBoogieNights]

How are the players not the asset? You can interchange players but if you replace good ones with bad ones, nobody is going to watch that. If that's the case, why isn't the fcs more popular?

 

[jake102]

How are the players not the asset? You can interchange players but if you replace good ones with bad ones, nobody is going to watch that. If that's the case, why isn't the fcs more popular?

If you were to play a football game where there were blank jerseys, no names, etc, probably 50% of fans (if not more) would have no clue whether they were watching Alabama, TCU, Kansas, Texas State or APB.

 

[Zubaz]

If you were to play a football game where there were blank jerseys, no names, etc, probably 50% of fans (if not more) would have no clue whether they were watching Alabama, TCU, Kansas, Texas State or APB.

Agreed, but at the same time if you were to put D2 or FCS level talent in Alabama or TCU uniforms, I think you'd see a comparable dropoff in interest as well. Nobody is saying the logos or brands aren't important, but it's wrong (and downright insulting to our players) to say that the talent on the field isn't important either.

 

[Pure Purple]

Solution....California simply splinters off and becomes adrift in the placid waters of the Pacific Ocean.

 

[HFrog12]

So many student-athletes already struggle with the time demands of being a student and an athlete. Adding the whole business element is sure to be an even greater drain.

Of course, the Cali law tries to mitigate that whole business burden by requiring the student-athlete to engage an agent. That agent won't just be looking for corporate sponsors.

They will be involved in any decision the student makes regarding their marketability.

Who they sign with, whether they should transfer, etc. It won't just be a coach and student-athlete/family relationship anymore.

The impact to college sports will be seismic.

I think this piece is pretty underrated. Not in the way the legislation is concerned but the overall success of the student athlete. So students are making money off their likeness, what is their incentive to attend class and graduate if dollars are already coming in? Most 18-22 year olds don't have the foresight to understand what they are currently making off of their likeness is unsustainable. Make money, don't go to class, flunk out, lose platform to make money off likeness. I am not naive to think that student athletes don't already get "aid" in the classroom so they can remain eligible, but this could have a very negative impact to a student athlete's growth and maturation.

 

[InstaFrog]

Just make full-ride scholies universal up to the roster limit and include Total Cost of Attendance for each and every sport.

 

[Wexahu]

Agreed, but at the same time if you were to put D2 or FCS level talent in Alabama or TCU uniforms, I think you'd see a comparable dropoff in interest as well. Nobody is saying the logos or brands aren't important, but it's wrong (and downright insulting to our players) to say that the talent on the field isn't important either.

It's only relevant in terms of how they compare to the teams they are playing against. You could take the Top 100 kids in college football right now and make them immediately ineligible the rest of the year and you wouldn't notice a marked difference in viewership or butts in seats. That's just how it is.

And I guarantee you that D2 or FCS talent in an Alabama uniform would generate far, far more money and fan interest than a bunch of 4 and 5 star 19 and 20-year old kids playing in some offshoot professional league somewhere.

 

[Wexahu]

I think this piece is pretty underrated. Not in the way the legislation is concerned but the overall success of the student athlete. So students are making money off their likeness, what is their incentive to attend class and graduate if dollars are already coming in? Most 18-22 year olds don't have the foresight to understand what they are currently making off of their likeness is unsustainable. Make money, don't go to class, flunk out, lose platform to make money off likeness. I am not naive to think that student athletes don't already get "aid" in the classroom so they can remain eligible, but this could have a very negative impact to a student athlete's growth and maturation.

Another good point. What happens when the kid who gets $100k to sign autographs for Joe Blow Mitsubishi quits going to class (which I'm sure he will)? The pandora's box that would be opened up would be unreal.

I'm frankly amazed at the ignorance shown on this issue.

And as I've said before, it isn't the NCAA people should be going after, it's the professional sports leagues that have age restrictions.

 

[Zubaz]

It's only relevant in terms of how they compare to the teams they are playing against.

This is where we disagree. I think that's true up until a certain point, but only to the point where the games remain exciting. If a bunch of no-talent guys are grinding out 2 yards / carry and a 50% passing completion for 150 yards, people tune out real quick, because that would be boring as heck to watch. The single biggest determining factor in sports is 1) Is the game fun to watch, followed closely (to your point) by 2) Is there a star / brand that I enjoy watching. If the games are boring because the talent is bad, people won't watch regardless of what the brand is.

 

[Zubaz]

Another good point. What happens when the kid who gets $100k to sign autographs for Joe Blow Mitsubishi quits going to class (which I'm sure he will)? The pandora's box that would be opened up would be unreal.

Doesn't seem particularly difficult to answer. If he doesn't go to class he is academically ineligible. Pretty simple, right?

 

[Wexahu]

Doesn't seem particularly difficult to answer. If he doesn't go to class he is academically ineligible. Pretty simple, right?

Yep, if it was only that simple.

People who think everything is going to be the stay the same except the players are going to be able to make some extra cash on the side are absolutely living in a dreamworld.

 

[Wexahu]

This is where we disagree. I think that's true up until a certain point, but only to the point where the games remain exciting. If a bunch of no-talent guys are grinding out 2 yards / carry and a 50% passing completion for 150 yards, people tune out real quick, because that would be boring as heck to watch. The single biggest determining factor in sports is 1) Is the game fun to watch, followed closely (to your point) by 2) Is there a star / brand that I enjoy watching. If the games are boring because the talent is bad, people won't watch regardless of what the brand is.

This is BS.

They aren't grinding out 2 yards per carry and completing 50% of passes at the lower levels of football, what makes you think that would be the case here?

It's ALL about the brand. The players are almost totally interchangeable.

 

[HFrog12]

This is where we disagree. I think that's true up until a certain point, but only to the point where the games remain exciting. If a bunch of no-talent guys are grinding out 2 yards / carry and a 50% passing completion for 150 yards, people tune out real quick, because that would be boring as heck to watch. The single biggest determining factor in sports is 1) Is the game fun to watch, followed closely (to your point) by 2) Is there a star / brand that I enjoy watching. If the games are boring because the talent is bad, people won't watch regardless of what the brand is.

Maybe 25% of the players on Katy vs. North Shore high teams are D1 talent yet its incredibly entertaining to watch. Plenty of people go to the games because of the jerseys and communities they represent. If all the super players go to California then it simply removes that caliber player and everyone else is on par again. As long as TCU still has the same opportunity to beat Texas, Tech, and Baylor, because they are all on the standards for player incentives, then I will continue to watch

 

[Eight]

Maybe 25% of the players on Katy vs. North Shore high teams are D1 talent yet its incredibly entertaining to watch. Plenty of people go to the games because of the jerseys and communities they represent. If all the super players go to California then it simply removes that caliber player and everyone else is on par again. As long as TCU still has the same opportunity to beat Texas, Tech, and Baylor, because they are all on the standards for player incentives, then I will continue to watch

do you honestly believe that the athletic departments and alums at bama, ohio state, texas , georgia, etc..would be perfectly content to let the best players in the country go to the california schools?

u.s. representative mark walker on north carolina has met with ncaa representatives about the california law and walker is authoring a federal bill that would grant the same rights to all athletes across the county and a big part of his reasoning is concern over an advantage in recruiting:

“There’s no way one state could have this and maybe two or three other states and not the other states. The recruiting advantage it could give USC or UCLA. This is why this has got to get fixed,” Walker said.

consider we have the kansas basketball program being investigated for money being funneled to recruits by a shoe company so that they would play at a program they gotten paid millions to wear a specific brand of shoes.

the players are required to wear those shoes, wear that gear, are walking billboards for the shoe companies and yet they can't get paid for the use of their likeness.

 

[Wexahu]

do you honestly believe that the athletic departments and alums at bama, ohio state, texas , georgia, etc..would be perfectly content to let the best players in the country go to the california schools?

u.s. representative mark walker on north carolina has met with ncaa representatives about the california law and walker is authoring a federal bill that would grant the same rights to all athletes across the county and a big part of his reasoning is concern over an advantage in recruiting:

“There’s no way one state could have this and maybe two or three other states and not the other states. The recruiting advantage it could give USC or UCLA. This is why this has got to get fixed,” Walker said.

consider we have the kansas basketball program being investigated for money being funneled to recruits by a shoe company so that they would play at a program they gotten paid millions to wear a specific brand of shoes.

the players are required to wear those shoes, wear that gear, are walking billboards for the shoe companies and yet they can't get paid for the use of their likeness.

I think the point is that California schools, if they do have players accepting payments, would have to disassociate with the NCAA as long as the NCAA stands firm on their rules. In that case, if those players go to a California school they basically aren't marketable anymore.

Without "Kansas" on their jersey their likeness really isn't worth anything. That again is the whole point.

I'll say it again......the ire should be directed at the NBA and NFL for not letting 18-year olds play in their league, and in the case of the NFL, kids not at least three years removed from high school. If they want to get paid for the use of their likeness, DON'T PLAY AN NCAA SPORT. It's really that simple. They'll find out how valuable their likeness is without the NCAA and universities doing all the branding and marketing for them.

 

[Zubaz]

It's ALL about the brand. The players are almost totally interchangeable.

We just aren't going to agree there. Don't get me wrong, the brand is really, REALLY important, I am not saying that these guys would be stars without the teams giving them a platform. We are in total agreement there that nobody would know who Trevor Lawrence would be if it wasn't for Clemson. No argument whatsoever. I just think you are really underestimating the inverse, the impact that the talent of the players has on the strength of the brand, or what the impact to the teams would be if the talent drops off significantly. We've seen the popularity of teams rise and fall as the talent and stars on the field rise and fall, not the least of which being TCU, and to think the talent on the field isn't a huge piece of our rise in popularity would be silly. For others, see SMU as a really good example (they aren't exactly filling the Cotton Bowl anymore). Also Tennessee, Colorado, UCLA, Alabama in the late 90's / early 2000's, Miami, etc. The list goes on and on.

I'll say it again......the ire should be directed at the NBA and NFL for not letting 18-year olds play in their league, and in the case of the NFL, kids not at least three years removed from high school. If they want to get paid for the use of their likeness, DON'T PLAY AN NCAA SPORT. It's really that simple. They'll find out how valuable their likeness is without the NCAA and universities doing all the branding and marketing for them.

This strikes me as a the "Love it or leave it" argument that is never very convincing. Yes, we should look at the NFLPA's reluctance to accept younger players, or the de-facto minor league benefits that the NFL gets from unpaid college players without contributing a dime to that farm system, but that doesn't mean that we can't at the same time look at ways to improve the wellbeing of younger players in the league they are currently forced to play in (if they want a realistic shot at the NFL). You can do both at the same time.

 

[Eight]

I think the point is that California schools, if they do have players accepting payments, would have to disassociate with the NCAA as long as the NCAA stands firm on their rules. In that case, if those players go to a California school they basically aren't marketable anymore.

Without "Kansas" on their jersey their likeness really isn't worth anything. That again is the whole point.

I'll say it again......the ire should be directed at the NBA and NFL for not letting 18-year olds play in their league, and in the case of the NFL, kids not at least three years removed from high school. If they want to get paid for the use of their likeness, DON'T PLAY AN NCAA SPORT. It's really that simple. They'll find out how valuable their likeness is without the NCAA and universities doing all the branding and marketing for them.

with football the name on the jersey might matter, but that hasn't been the case with basketball.

you have kids coming into college basketball who are damn near their own brands with their on line followings which is why we see the influence of the shoe money down in the aau programs.

i would go as far as saying without the pseudo gambling aspect the ncaa basketball tournament wouldn't be nearly as popular as it is now because of the number of people who follow the tournament because of their brackets and really don't follow teams.

very similar to what we have seen with the nfl and fantasy football.

in regards to this being a pro sports issue i don't agree at all.

the nba doesn't get paid one penny if the kids at duke wear nike shoes and jerseys but the school and the coach k does and if a kid doesn't want to wear nike he needs to go play elsewhere. that isn't an nba problem.

the nfl isn't the charging how much each year for having a box or 4 club seats.

the only kids on a college campus who are on scholarship who can't hold a job during their time at school are athletes and yet athletes are the ones who generate the greatest amount of revenue back to the school?

how is that an nfl, nba, mlb, etc.. issue?