[TreesAndBirds]

SJ Merc endorses California legislation re athlete compensation

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/06/30/e...ent-deals/

What I find striking is the weakness of the analysis. Yes the current situation is problematic. But it is possible to make it worse. The solution to the problem is to let athletes go pro regardless of age etc, not to turn universities into semi pro leagues. As we’ve discussed, baseball does a good job of this, although each sport has its own unique aspects as to how much seasoning etc an athlete needs. And allowing kids to go pro without age restrictions would likely help Stanford significantly, because kids coming to Stanford are far more likely to value academics and not be enticed by a minor league opportunity ( a pro opportunity out of high school might be different). The editorial talks about other industries not limiting compensation but misses the point that no one prevents 18 year old entertainers from turning pro.

[TreesAndBirds]

SJ Merc endorses California legislation re athlete compensation

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/06/30/e...ent-deals/

What I find striking is the weakness of the analysis. Yes the current situation is problematic. But it is possible to make it worse. The solution to the problem is to let athletes go pro regardless of age etc, not to turn universities into semi pro leagues. As we’ve discussed, baseball does a good job of this, although each sport has its own unique aspects as to how much seasoning etc an athlete needs. And allowing kids to go pro without age restrictions would likely help Stanford significantly, because kids coming to Stanford are far more likely to value academics and not be enticed by a minor league opportunity ( a pro opportunity out of high school might be different). The editorial talks about other industries not limiting compensation but misses the point that no one prevents 18 year old entertainers from turning pro.

[CTcard]

SJ Merc endorses California legislation re athlete compensation
...

What I find striking is the weakness of the analysis.

I would agree with you, except calling whatever was in that op-ed piece "analysis" is overly indulgent.

Yes the current situation is problematic. But it is possible to make it worse.

Broadly speaking such logic is at the heart of much of what I dislike in what passes for discussion of the various ills of college sports.
There seem to be two versions of this.
Version #1: Things aren't perfect - so get rid of it all.
- College sports already have competitive balance problems, so lets get rid of everything that tries to promote such balance.
- Many college athletes don't get a good education, so let's get rid of every effort to promote them getting an education.
Version #2: No matter what the problem, it means we must pay the players.
- Many college athletes don't get a good education - so pay the players.
- Alabama has advantages over Ball State - so pay the players.
- College coaches make brobdingnagian salaries while colleges cut course offerings - so pay the players.

The solution to the problem is to let athletes go pro regardless of age etc, not to turn universities into semi pro leagues.

Unfortunately, I am not so optimistic that there is a solution to all that ails college athletics, much less anything that qualifies as the solution. Viable pro leagues open to any 18 year old would have plusses and minuses. It would tend to keep out of college most athletes who have no interest in college, or simply prefer other trade-offs to college, which I think would be a net positive. And beyond that, it does seem arbitrary to simply not allow 18 year olds. So I am for it - but that's just a piece.
 


I might actually be a supporter of the NCAA allowing payments for use of image and likeness by third parties, but I wish there were a more realistic discussion of what the current problem really entails and what trade offs are presented by various proposed solutions.

[CTcard]

SJ Merc endorses California legislation re athlete compensation
...

What I find striking is the weakness of the analysis.

I would agree with you, except calling whatever was in that op-ed piece "analysis" is overly indulgent.

Yes the current situation is problematic. But it is possible to make it worse.

Broadly speaking such logic is at the heart of much of what I dislike in what passes for discussion of the various ills of college sports.
There seem to be two versions of this.
Version #1: Things aren't perfect - so get rid of it all.
- College sports already have competitive balance problems, so lets get rid of everything that tries to promote such balance.
- Many college athletes don't get a good education, so let's get rid of every effort to promote them getting an education.
Version #2: No matter what the problem, it means we must pay the players.
- Many college athletes don't get a good education - so pay the players.
- Alabama has advantages over Ball State - so pay the players.
- College coaches make brobdingnagian salaries while colleges cut course offerings - so pay the players.

The solution to the problem is to let athletes go pro regardless of age etc, not to turn universities into semi pro leagues.

Unfortunately, I am not so optimistic that there is a solution to all that ails college athletics, much less anything that qualifies as the solution. Viable pro leagues open to any 18 year old would have plusses and minuses. It would tend to keep out of college most athletes who have no interest in college, or simply prefer other trade-offs to college, which I think would be a net positive. And beyond that, it does seem arbitrary to simply not allow 18 year olds. So I am for it - but that's just a piece.
 


I might actually be a supporter of the NCAA allowing payments for use of image and likeness by third parties, but I wish there were a more realistic discussion of what the current problem really entails and what trade offs are presented by various proposed solutions.

[Genuine Realist]

I continue to say, let an athlete take money from n anyone willing to pay - except the school and its boosters, broadly defined. I specifically  mean to include professional sports franchises and agents.

I remain baffled why there is any resistance to this. The day someone shows me why family trust money is pure, and sports franchise money is tainted, I'll listen v down.

[Genuine Realist]

I continue to say, let an athlete take money from n anyone willing to pay - except the school and its boosters, broadly defined. I specifically  mean to include professional sports franchises and agents.

I remain baffled why there is any resistance to this. The day someone shows me why family trust money is pure, and sports franchise money is tainted, I'll listen v down.

[2006alum]

The day someone shows me why family trust money is pure, and sports franchise money is tainted, I'll listen v down.

Well that's easy: a rich family is by definition only going to be buying their own kid's love, happiness, well-being, etc. With sports, lots of third parties are involved, and those involvements undermine a recruiting and admissions process by massively scaling the potential for haves to buy away players from have-nots, while also creating tensions between players and their teams/coaches when the players have several other influential voices in their ears. There's definitely issues with helicopter parents in sports, but by definition those parents' influence is limited to their own kid.

[2006alum]

The day someone shows me why family trust money is pure, and sports franchise money is tainted, I'll listen v down.

Well that's easy: a rich family is by definition only going to be buying their own kid's love, happiness, well-being, etc. With sports, lots of third parties are involved, and those involvements undermine a recruiting and admissions process by massively scaling the potential for haves to buy away players from have-nots, while also creating tensions between players and their teams/coaches when the players have several other influential voices in their ears. There's definitely issues with helicopter parents in sports, but by definition those parents' influence is limited to their own kid.

[Genuine Realist]

The day someone shows me why family trust money is pure, and sports franchise money is tainted, I'll listen v down.

Well that's easy: a rich family is by definition only going to be buying their own kid's love, happiness, well-being, etc. With sports, lots of third parties are involved, and those involvements undermine a recruiting and admissions process by massively scaling the potential for haves to buy away players from have-nots, while also creating tensions between players and their teams/coaches when the players have several other influential voices in their ears. There's definitely issues with helicopter parents in sports, but by definition those parents' influence is limited to their own kid.

That happens right now, without the money. Plus the issue is mitigated almost completely by squad size and scholarship limitations.

Water will seek its ow n level in no time.

Next.

[Genuine Realist]

The day someone shows me why family trust money is pure, and sports franchise money is tainted, I'll listen v down.

Well that's easy: a rich family is by definition only going to be buying their own kid's love, happiness, well-being, etc. With sports, lots of third parties are involved, and those involvements undermine a recruiting and admissions process by massively scaling the potential for haves to buy away players from have-nots, while also creating tensions between players and their teams/coaches when the players have several other influential voices in their ears. There's definitely issues with helicopter parents in sports, but by definition those parents' influence is limited to their own kid.

That happens right now, without the money. Plus the issue is mitigated almost completely by squad size and scholarship limitations.

Water will seek its ow n level in no time.

Next.

[2006alum]

Well that's easy: a rich family is by definition only going to be buying their own kid's love, happiness, well-being, etc. With sports, lots of third parties are involved, and those involvements undermine a recruiting and admissions process by massively scaling the potential for haves to buy away players from have-nots, while also creating tensions between players and their teams/coaches when the players have several other influential voices in their ears. There's definitely issues with helicopter parents in sports, but by definition those parents' influence is limited to their own kid.

That happens right now, without the money. Plus the issue is mitigated almost completely by squad size and scholarship limitations.

Water will seek its ow n level in no time.

Next.

Maybe I'm missing something, but "squad size" varies wildly from sport to sport, as do "scholarship limitations." A "small" recruiting class for football is 15-17 recruits; a 5-recruit basketball class is enormous. A 3-recruit tennis class is highly unusual. There's almost no universe where you'd have a 3-recruit golf class with all three on full scholarships, because golf only gets 4.5 scholarships per team total. So do you have a particular sport in mind? 

I also don't see how the issues I raised are mitigated by squad size or scholarship limitations, insofar as a student who can make $500,000 per year from an endorsement deal may care more about what the endorser has to say than what his coach does regardless of the sport. And if U of O has a relationship with top sports agent X, there'd be nothing to stop the Ducks from saying "sign with us and you'll get an agent and an endorsement deal too." Scholarship limitations would be irrelevant in the licit pay-to-play world.

By contrast, no matter how Aunt Becky tries to use her money to get her kid into school, she's not in the position to manipulate a whole bunch of other kids. And one her kid gets in, they're quitting the team anyway. Family trust money sure isn't "pure," but I'm failing to see how it generates that kind of perverse incentive structure, because that money remains with the student regardless of which university they go to, and those kids almost never ended up playing the sport in question.

Please enlighten me if I'm missing something.

[2006alum]

Well that's easy: a rich family is by definition only going to be buying their own kid's love, happiness, well-being, etc. With sports, lots of third parties are involved, and those involvements undermine a recruiting and admissions process by massively scaling the potential for haves to buy away players from have-nots, while also creating tensions between players and their teams/coaches when the players have several other influential voices in their ears. There's definitely issues with helicopter parents in sports, but by definition those parents' influence is limited to their own kid.

That happens right now, without the money. Plus the issue is mitigated almost completely by squad size and scholarship limitations.

Water will seek its ow n level in no time.

Next.

Maybe I'm missing something, but "squad size" varies wildly from sport to sport, as do "scholarship limitations." A "small" recruiting class for football is 15-17 recruits; a 5-recruit basketball class is enormous. A 3-recruit tennis class is highly unusual. There's almost no universe where you'd have a 3-recruit golf class with all three on full scholarships, because golf only gets 4.5 scholarships per team total. So do you have a particular sport in mind? 

I also don't see how the issues I raised are mitigated by squad size or scholarship limitations, insofar as a student who can make $500,000 per year from an endorsement deal may care more about what the endorser has to say than what his coach does regardless of the sport. And if U of O has a relationship with top sports agent X, there'd be nothing to stop the Ducks from saying "sign with us and you'll get an agent and an endorsement deal too." Scholarship limitations would be irrelevant in the licit pay-to-play world.

By contrast, no matter how Aunt Becky tries to use her money to get her kid into school, she's not in the position to manipulate a whole bunch of other kids. And one her kid gets in, they're quitting the team anyway. Family trust money sure isn't "pure," but I'm failing to see how it generates that kind of perverse incentive structure, because that money remains with the student regardless of which university they go to, and those kids almost never ended up playing the sport in question.

Please enlighten me if I'm missing something.

[CTcard]

I remain baffled why there is any resistance to this.

That seems to be because you don't pay attention to the arguments from those providing resistance.

As far as I can see, the main concern is making competitive balance even worse than it currently is, perhaps much worse.

There are some sorts of "name and likeness" payments that are more or less independent of which program one joins and therefore will have relatively little impact on the competitive landscape. There are others very dependent upon particular schools and particular deals. As an example, any booster who wants to make sure Joe Five Star signs with Dear Old U (DOU) will simply arrange for Joe to come sign some autographs for whatever it is he and his buddies can pony up. That would presumably be perfectly legal, and a much more consistent and lucrative happening at Striving SEC U (SSU) than at say ... UMass.

Now it is entirely possible that is wrong; that there won't be a whole lot of boosters running "autograph sessions" - or that these won't actually sway many athletes.
More importantly, it may simply be that is a trade off that has to be made under pressure from the principle that anyone should control rights to their own selves.
But, it's pretty easy to know that is why some people are resistant to the idea.

[CTcard]

I remain baffled why there is any resistance to this.

That seems to be because you don't pay attention to the arguments from those providing resistance.

As far as I can see, the main concern is making competitive balance even worse than it currently is, perhaps much worse.

There are some sorts of "name and likeness" payments that are more or less independent of which program one joins and therefore will have relatively little impact on the competitive landscape. There are others very dependent upon particular schools and particular deals. As an example, any booster who wants to make sure Joe Five Star signs with Dear Old U (DOU) will simply arrange for Joe to come sign some autographs for whatever it is he and his buddies can pony up. That would presumably be perfectly legal, and a much more consistent and lucrative happening at Striving SEC U (SSU) than at say ... UMass.

Now it is entirely possible that is wrong; that there won't be a whole lot of boosters running "autograph sessions" - or that these won't actually sway many athletes.
More importantly, it may simply be that is a trade off that has to be made under pressure from the principle that anyone should control rights to their own selves.
But, it's pretty easy to know that is why some people are resistant to the idea.

[Genuine Realist]

Well that's easy: a rich family is by definition only going to be buying their own kid's love, happiness, well-being, etc. With sports, lots of third parties are involved, and those involvements undermine a recruiting and admissions process by massively scaling the potential for haves to buy away players from have-nots, while also creating tensions between players and their teams/coaches when the players have several other influential voices in their ears. There's definitely issues with helicopter parents in sports, but by definition those parents' influence is limited to their own kid.

That happens right now, without the money. Plus the issue is mitigated almost completely by squad size and scholarship limitations.

Water will seek its ow n level in no time.

Next.

Maybe I'm missing something, but "squad size" varies wildly from sport to sport, as do "scholarship limitations." A "small" recruiting class for football is 15-17 recruits; a 5-recruit basketball class is enormous. A 3-recruit tennis class is highly unusual. There's almost no universe where you'd have a 3-recruit golf class with all three on full scholarships, because golf only gets 4.5 scholarships per team total. So do you have a particular sport in mind? 

I also don't see how the issues I raised are mitigated by squad size or scholarship limitations, insofar as a student who can make $500,000 per year from an endorsement deal may care more about what the endorser has to say than what his coach does regardless of the sport. And if U of O has a relationship with top sports agent X, there'd be nothing to stop the Ducks from saying "sign with us and you'll get an agent and an endorsement deal too." Scholarship limitations would be irrelevant in the licit pay-to-play world.

By contrast, no matter how Aunt Becky tries to use her money to get her kid into school, she's not in the position to manipulate a whole bunch of other kids. And one her kid gets in, they're quitting the team anyway. Family trust money sure isn't "pure," but I'm failing to see how it generates that kind of perverse incentive structure, because that money remains with the student regardless of which university they go to, and those kids almost never ended up playing the sport in question.

Please enlighten me if I'm missing something.

Squad and scholarship limits are the rejoinder to the notion that there would be steering to particular schools. You might want all your players to play for Alabama or USC, but there are only so many who can. Besides, PT is far more important than playing for a successful team. Quality advice from a professional franchise probably prevents stockpiling, which is a good thing.

FWIW, I blogged a fictional dialog between a Stanford basketball recruit and the GM of the NBA franchise that expects to draft him. You may find it interesting. 

https://grealistink.typepad.com/wordplay...cruit.html

As to the rest, you're at too high concept a level. The disagreement between endorser and college coach exists far more as a theoretical problem than a practical level. With the vast majority of kids, the evaluation of the franchise and the college are going to be identical - needs to develop an outside shot, gain weight and strength, work on defensive footwork, etc. The ability of college coaches to win or lose varies enormously (duh). But almost all of them know how to coach fundamentals.

In football, the situation does arise where the pros see a different position for the kid than the college - LB v. TE, DL v. OL, WR v. DB, etc. But here I am solidly on the side of the kid and the pros. If he is playing a position in which he has a limited professional future, he has a right to know that.

In general, however, the pros and the college are going to be on exactly the same page as far as where a kid stands and what he should do to improve. If you're thinking someone is going to pay $500,000 to an athlete who is an uncertain starter, may lose out on his position to someone else, you're talking about an animal that doesn't exist. Endorsers expect payoffs -- endorsement money is going to go to established stars, popular with their programs, and on good terms with their coaches. Endorsers expect their money to work for them. They don't buy problems.

[Genuine Realist]

Well that's easy: a rich family is by definition only going to be buying their own kid's love, happiness, well-being, etc. With sports, lots of third parties are involved, and those involvements undermine a recruiting and admissions process by massively scaling the potential for haves to buy away players from have-nots, while also creating tensions between players and their teams/coaches when the players have several other influential voices in their ears. There's definitely issues with helicopter parents in sports, but by definition those parents' influence is limited to their own kid.

That happens right now, without the money. Plus the issue is mitigated almost completely by squad size and scholarship limitations.

Water will seek its ow n level in no time.

Next.

Maybe I'm missing something, but "squad size" varies wildly from sport to sport, as do "scholarship limitations." A "small" recruiting class for football is 15-17 recruits; a 5-recruit basketball class is enormous. A 3-recruit tennis class is highly unusual. There's almost no universe where you'd have a 3-recruit golf class with all three on full scholarships, because golf only gets 4.5 scholarships per team total. So do you have a particular sport in mind? 

I also don't see how the issues I raised are mitigated by squad size or scholarship limitations, insofar as a student who can make $500,000 per year from an endorsement deal may care more about what the endorser has to say than what his coach does regardless of the sport. And if U of O has a relationship with top sports agent X, there'd be nothing to stop the Ducks from saying "sign with us and you'll get an agent and an endorsement deal too." Scholarship limitations would be irrelevant in the licit pay-to-play world.

By contrast, no matter how Aunt Becky tries to use her money to get her kid into school, she's not in the position to manipulate a whole bunch of other kids. And one her kid gets in, they're quitting the team anyway. Family trust money sure isn't "pure," but I'm failing to see how it generates that kind of perverse incentive structure, because that money remains with the student regardless of which university they go to, and those kids almost never ended up playing the sport in question.

Please enlighten me if I'm missing something.

Squad and scholarship limits are the rejoinder to the notion that there would be steering to particular schools. You might want all your players to play for Alabama or USC, but there are only so many who can. Besides, PT is far more important than playing for a successful team. Quality advice from a professional franchise probably prevents stockpiling, which is a good thing.

FWIW, I blogged a fictional dialog between a Stanford basketball recruit and the GM of the NBA franchise that expects to draft him. You may find it interesting. 

https://grealistink.typepad.com/wordplay...cruit.html

As to the rest, you're at too high concept a level. The disagreement between endorser and college coach exists far more as a theoretical problem than a practical level. With the vast majority of kids, the evaluation of the franchise and the college are going to be identical - needs to develop an outside shot, gain weight and strength, work on defensive footwork, etc. The ability of college coaches to win or lose varies enormously (duh). But almost all of them know how to coach fundamentals.

In football, the situation does arise where the pros see a different position for the kid than the college - LB v. TE, DL v. OL, WR v. DB, etc. But here I am solidly on the side of the kid and the pros. If he is playing a position in which he has a limited professional future, he has a right to know that.

In general, however, the pros and the college are going to be on exactly the same page as far as where a kid stands and what he should do to improve. If you're thinking someone is going to pay $500,000 to an athlete who is an uncertain starter, may lose out on his position to someone else, you're talking about an animal that doesn't exist. Endorsers expect payoffs -- endorsement money is going to go to established stars, popular with their programs, and on good terms with their coaches. Endorsers expect their money to work for them. They don't buy problems.

[Phogge]

A Chronicle letter to editor today by the great Gary Cavalli. He backs the SB and says that the NCAA will never ban Cali schools. Since it won’t take effect until 2023 the NCAA has time to weasel out a compromise allowing some payments.

[Phogge]

A Chronicle letter to editor today by the great Gary Cavalli. He backs the SB and says that the NCAA will never ban Cali schools. Since it won’t take effect until 2023 the NCAA has time to weasel out a compromise allowing some payments.

[Genuine Realist]

A Chronicle letter to editor today by the great Gary Cavalli. He backs the SB and says that the NCAA will never ban Cali schools. Since it won’t take effect until 2023 the NCAA has time to weasel out a compromise allowing some payments.

It's a start. It doesn't go nearly far enough. The field should be entirely open. The problems will disappear almost overnight - and some kids who should stay in school and learn a little more, will be able to do so, while still cashing out in a way that can benefit their family.

[Genuine Realist]

A Chronicle letter to editor today by the great Gary Cavalli. He backs the SB and says that the NCAA will never ban Cali schools. Since it won’t take effect until 2023 the NCAA has time to weasel out a compromise allowing some payments.

It's a start. It doesn't go nearly far enough. The field should be entirely open. The problems will disappear almost overnight - and some kids who should stay in school and learn a little more, will be able to do so, while still cashing out in a way that can benefit their family.

[BostonCard]

A Chronicle letter to editor today by the great Gary Cavalli. He backs the SB and says that the NCAA will never ban Cali schools. Since it won’t take effect until 2023 the NCAA has time to weasel out a compromise allowing some payments.

It's a start. It doesn't go nearly far enough. The field should be entirely open. The problems will disappear almost overnight - and some kids who should stay in school and learn a little more, will be able to do so, while still cashing out in a way that can benefit their family.

Depending on how you do it, this is a somewhat underrated article for allowing for compensation of athletes.  However, the devil is always in the details, and how you structure the incentives matters.  Would a sponsor pressure athletes to go pro earlier rather than provide money that gives them the freedom to stay in college longer.

BC

BC

[BostonCard]

A Chronicle letter to editor today by the great Gary Cavalli. He backs the SB and says that the NCAA will never ban Cali schools. Since it won’t take effect until 2023 the NCAA has time to weasel out a compromise allowing some payments.

It's a start. It doesn't go nearly far enough. The field should be entirely open. The problems will disappear almost overnight - and some kids who should stay in school and learn a little more, will be able to do so, while still cashing out in a way that can benefit their family.

Depending on how you do it, this is a somewhat underrated article for allowing for compensation of athletes.  However, the devil is always in the details, and how you structure the incentives matters.  Would a sponsor pressure athletes to go pro earlier rather than provide money that gives them the freedom to stay in college longer.

BC

BC

[Genuine Realist]

A Chronicle letter to editor today by the great Gary Cavalli. He backs the SB and says that the NCAA will never ban Cali schools. Since it won’t take effect until 2023 the NCAA has time to weasel out a compromise allowing some payments.

It's a start. It doesn't go nearly far enough. The field should be entirely open. The problems will disappear almost overnight - and some kids who should stay in school and learn a little more, will be able to do so, while still cashing out in a way that can benefit their family.

Depending on how you do it, this is a somewhat underrated article for allowing for compensation of athletes.  However, the devil is always in the details, and how you structure the incentives matters.  Would a sponsor pressure athletes to go pro earlier rather than provide money that gives them the freedom to stay in college longer.

BC

BC

In the world I'd like to see, where third party payments would be completely permissible, most good athletes would already be under option contracts to pro franchises. They'd go to college, or to development leagues, or - in the rarest case - straight to the franchise, depending on how they rated. There'd be no distinction between pro and amateur.

Most would head to college, because it's a good deal in terms of keeping life options open. They have to meet NCAA standards of eligibility and academic progress. But, like a computer or music major, they might leave school if the opportunity beckons, i.e., if there's a place for them on the big league squad. There's a theoretical issue that the pros are going to interfere with college squads, but in practice that'll disappear. As noted, coaches at both levels are going to have pretty much the same evaluation of a kid, where he rates and what he has to do to progress. Although the NCAA and (say) the NBA are too separate entities in this scenario, it's a near certainty that the coaching associations  would work out a protocol. It's madness to disrupt a college squad in mid season, and there are next to no players who justify the ill will. So you'd work out a protocol where an NBA GM alerts the school that it has a place for a given player, and he likely will not be in school in the following term. That's a helluva lot more notice than coaches get now.

Toss the notion of barrier out completely and imagine. In my world, a kid might complete the college season, and finals, and then be assigned by the team that holds his option to the major franchise for the balance of the season. then he might spend the summer playing in an NBA league. And in the fall? He returns to school and plays. The only thing that matters is academic eligibility.

And if he leaves school, and it doesn't work out? Then he returns a year later, assuming the school still wants him, and rejoins the squad. Why not?

Anything is possible. Forget about any penalty or ineligibility for being involved with a pro team or an agent not affiliated with the school. It all works beautifully. 

I'll post my link again. 

https://grealistink.typepad.com/wordplay...cruit.html

[Genuine Realist]

A Chronicle letter to editor today by the great Gary Cavalli. He backs the SB and says that the NCAA will never ban Cali schools. Since it won’t take effect until 2023 the NCAA has time to weasel out a compromise allowing some payments.

It's a start. It doesn't go nearly far enough. The field should be entirely open. The problems will disappear almost overnight - and some kids who should stay in school and learn a little more, will be able to do so, while still cashing out in a way that can benefit their family.

Depending on how you do it, this is a somewhat underrated article for allowing for compensation of athletes.  However, the devil is always in the details, and how you structure the incentives matters.  Would a sponsor pressure athletes to go pro earlier rather than provide money that gives them the freedom to stay in college longer.

BC

BC

In the world I'd like to see, where third party payments would be completely permissible, most good athletes would already be under option contracts to pro franchises. They'd go to college, or to development leagues, or - in the rarest case - straight to the franchise, depending on how they rated. There'd be no distinction between pro and amateur.

Most would head to college, because it's a good deal in terms of keeping life options open. They have to meet NCAA standards of eligibility and academic progress. But, like a computer or music major, they might leave school if the opportunity beckons, i.e., if there's a place for them on the big league squad. There's a theoretical issue that the pros are going to interfere with college squads, but in practice that'll disappear. As noted, coaches at both levels are going to have pretty much the same evaluation of a kid, where he rates and what he has to do to progress. Although the NCAA and (say) the NBA are too separate entities in this scenario, it's a near certainty that the coaching associations  would work out a protocol. It's madness to disrupt a college squad in mid season, and there are next to no players who justify the ill will. So you'd work out a protocol where an NBA GM alerts the school that it has a place for a given player, and he likely will not be in school in the following term. That's a helluva lot more notice than coaches get now.

Toss the notion of barrier out completely and imagine. In my world, a kid might complete the college season, and finals, and then be assigned by the team that holds his option to the major franchise for the balance of the season. then he might spend the summer playing in an NBA league. And in the fall? He returns to school and plays. The only thing that matters is academic eligibility.

And if he leaves school, and it doesn't work out? Then he returns a year later, assuming the school still wants him, and rejoins the squad. Why not?

Anything is possible. Forget about any penalty or ineligibility for being involved with a pro team or an agent not affiliated with the school. It all works beautifully. 

I'll post my link again. 

https://grealistink.typepad.com/wordplay...cruit.html

[2006alum]

In the world I'd like to see, where third party payments would be completely permissible, most good athletes would already be under option contracts to pro franchises. They'd go to college, or to development leagues, or - in the rarest case - straight to the franchise, depending on how they rated. There'd be no distinction between pro and amateur.

Most would head to college, because it's a good deal in terms of keeping life options open. They have to meet NCAA standards of eligibility and academic progress. But, like a computer or music major, they might leave school if the opportunity beckons, i.e., if there's a place for them on the big league squad. There's a theoretical issue that the pros are going to interfere with college squads, but in practice that'll disappear. As noted, coaches at both levels are going to have pretty much the same evaluation of a kid, where he rates and what he has to do to progress. Although the NCAA and (say) the NBA are too separate entities in this scenario, it's a near certainty that the coaching associations  would work out a protocol. It's madness to disrupt a college squad in mid season, and there are next to no players who justify the ill will. So you'd work out a protocol where an NBA GM alerts the school that it has a place for a given player, and he likely will not be in school in the following term. That's a helluva lot more notice than coaches get now.

Toss the notion of barrier out completely and imagine. In my world, a kid might complete the college season, and finals, and then be assigned by the team that holds his option to the major franchise for the balance of the season. then he might spend the summer playing in an NBA league. And in the fall? He returns to school and plays. The only thing that matters is academic eligibility.

And if he leaves school, and it doesn't work out? Then he returns a year later, assuming the school still wants him, and rejoins the squad. Why not?

Anything is possible. Forget about any penalty or ineligibility for being involved with a pro team or an agent not affiliated with the school. It all works beautifully. 

I'll post my link again. 

https://grealistink.typepad.com/wordplay...cruit.html

Apart from the fact that this account is unlikely to be "genuine" and is almost certainly not "realist," I'm unclear why your picture isn't solved by simply letting student-athletes go pro whenever they want to, potentially with the NBA's "don't hire an agent but explore the draft" window that allows pro-leaning amateurs to return.

In other words, if a student-athlete can go pro at any time, what's the necessity for this law? If you've read this entire thread, you'll know that that's been my position all along: from age 18 on, any student-athlete should be able to go pro whenever they want. But I don't see how letting them start cutting side deals "while amateurs" will improve anything, and I think a number of folks in this thread have explained why it will make them much worse. The problems related to the undue influence of agents, boosters, side-hustling assistant coaches/recruiters, etc., isn't suddenly going to be resolved just because they're legal.

But I've said my two cents and I fear we're just running in circles, so I think I've said all I have to say on this one.

[2006alum]

In the world I'd like to see, where third party payments would be completely permissible, most good athletes would already be under option contracts to pro franchises. They'd go to college, or to development leagues, or - in the rarest case - straight to the franchise, depending on how they rated. There'd be no distinction between pro and amateur.

Most would head to college, because it's a good deal in terms of keeping life options open. They have to meet NCAA standards of eligibility and academic progress. But, like a computer or music major, they might leave school if the opportunity beckons, i.e., if there's a place for them on the big league squad. There's a theoretical issue that the pros are going to interfere with college squads, but in practice that'll disappear. As noted, coaches at both levels are going to have pretty much the same evaluation of a kid, where he rates and what he has to do to progress. Although the NCAA and (say) the NBA are too separate entities in this scenario, it's a near certainty that the coaching associations  would work out a protocol. It's madness to disrupt a college squad in mid season, and there are next to no players who justify the ill will. So you'd work out a protocol where an NBA GM alerts the school that it has a place for a given player, and he likely will not be in school in the following term. That's a helluva lot more notice than coaches get now.

Toss the notion of barrier out completely and imagine. In my world, a kid might complete the college season, and finals, and then be assigned by the team that holds his option to the major franchise for the balance of the season. then he might spend the summer playing in an NBA league. And in the fall? He returns to school and plays. The only thing that matters is academic eligibility.

And if he leaves school, and it doesn't work out? Then he returns a year later, assuming the school still wants him, and rejoins the squad. Why not?

Anything is possible. Forget about any penalty or ineligibility for being involved with a pro team or an agent not affiliated with the school. It all works beautifully. 

I'll post my link again. 

https://grealistink.typepad.com/wordplay...cruit.html

Apart from the fact that this account is unlikely to be "genuine" and is almost certainly not "realist," I'm unclear why your picture isn't solved by simply letting student-athletes go pro whenever they want to, potentially with the NBA's "don't hire an agent but explore the draft" window that allows pro-leaning amateurs to return.

In other words, if a student-athlete can go pro at any time, what's the necessity for this law? If you've read this entire thread, you'll know that that's been my position all along: from age 18 on, any student-athlete should be able to go pro whenever they want. But I don't see how letting them start cutting side deals "while amateurs" will improve anything, and I think a number of folks in this thread have explained why it will make them much worse. The problems related to the undue influence of agents, boosters, side-hustling assistant coaches/recruiters, etc., isn't suddenly going to be resolved just because they're legal.

But I've said my two cents and I fear we're just running in circles, so I think I've said all I have to say on this one.

[Genuine Realist]

In the world I'd like to see, where third party payments would be completely permissible, most good athletes would already be under option contracts to pro franchises. They'd go to college, or to development leagues, or - in the rarest case - straight to the franchise, depending on how they rated. There'd be no distinction between pro and amateur.

Most would head to college, because it's a good deal in terms of keeping life options open. They have to meet NCAA standards of eligibility and academic progress. But, like a computer or music major, they might leave school if the opportunity beckons, i.e., if there's a place for them on the big league squad. There's a theoretical issue that the pros are going to interfere with college squads, but in practice that'll disappear. As noted, coaches at both levels are going to have pretty much the same evaluation of a kid, where he rates and what he has to do to progress. Although the NCAA and (say) the NBA are too separate entities in this scenario, it's a near certainty that the coaching associations  would work out a protocol. It's madness to disrupt a college squad in mid season, and there are next to no players who justify the ill will. So you'd work out a protocol where an NBA GM alerts the school that it has a place for a given player, and he likely will not be in school in the following term. That's a helluva lot more notice than coaches get now.

Toss the notion of barrier out completely and imagine. In my world, a kid might complete the college season, and finals, and then be assigned by the team that holds his option to the major franchise for the balance of the season. then he might spend the summer playing in an NBA league. And in the fall? He returns to school and plays. The only thing that matters is academic eligibility.

And if he leaves school, and it doesn't work out? Then he returns a year later, assuming the school still wants him, and rejoins the squad. Why not?

Anything is possible. Forget about any penalty or ineligibility for being involved with a pro team or an agent not affiliated with the school. It all works beautifully. 

I'll post my link again. 

https://grealistink.typepad.com/wordplay...cruit.html

Apart from the fact that this account is unlikely to be "genuine" and is almost certainly not "realist," I'm unclear why your picture isn't solved by simply letting student-athletes go pro whenever they want to, potentially with the NBA's "don't hire an agent but explore the draft" window that allows pro-leaning amateurs to return.

In other words, if a student-athlete can go pro at any time, what's the necessity for this law? If you've read this entire thread, you'll know that that's been my position all along: from age 18 on, any student-athlete should be able to go pro whenever they want. But I don't see how letting them start cutting side deals "while amateurs" will improve anything, and I think a number of folks in this thread have explained why it will make them much worse. The problems related to the undue influence of agents, boosters, side-hustling assistant coaches/recruiters, etc., isn't suddenly going to be resolved just because they're legal.

But I've said my two cents and I fear we're just running in circles, so I think I've said all I have to say on this one.

Of course they go pro. They're all pro. They also play in college. Pretty much like a drama student lucky enough to get an equity card or a musician good enough to join the union. If I suggested that those accomplishments prevented the actress from being cast in the school play or in the school band, you'd look at me like I had two heads. Ditto a computer science major who works part time for Apple.

If you're in school and academically eligible, you can play. The fact that you are under contract to a pro franchise makes no difference. It couldn't be simpler.

[Genuine Realist]

In the world I'd like to see, where third party payments would be completely permissible, most good athletes would already be under option contracts to pro franchises. They'd go to college, or to development leagues, or - in the rarest case - straight to the franchise, depending on how they rated. There'd be no distinction between pro and amateur.

Most would head to college, because it's a good deal in terms of keeping life options open. They have to meet NCAA standards of eligibility and academic progress. But, like a computer or music major, they might leave school if the opportunity beckons, i.e., if there's a place for them on the big league squad. There's a theoretical issue that the pros are going to interfere with college squads, but in practice that'll disappear. As noted, coaches at both levels are going to have pretty much the same evaluation of a kid, where he rates and what he has to do to progress. Although the NCAA and (say) the NBA are too separate entities in this scenario, it's a near certainty that the coaching associations  would work out a protocol. It's madness to disrupt a college squad in mid season, and there are next to no players who justify the ill will. So you'd work out a protocol where an NBA GM alerts the school that it has a place for a given player, and he likely will not be in school in the following term. That's a helluva lot more notice than coaches get now.

Toss the notion of barrier out completely and imagine. In my world, a kid might complete the college season, and finals, and then be assigned by the team that holds his option to the major franchise for the balance of the season. then he might spend the summer playing in an NBA league. And in the fall? He returns to school and plays. The only thing that matters is academic eligibility.

And if he leaves school, and it doesn't work out? Then he returns a year later, assuming the school still wants him, and rejoins the squad. Why not?

Anything is possible. Forget about any penalty or ineligibility for being involved with a pro team or an agent not affiliated with the school. It all works beautifully. 

I'll post my link again. 

https://grealistink.typepad.com/wordplay...cruit.html

Apart from the fact that this account is unlikely to be "genuine" and is almost certainly not "realist," I'm unclear why your picture isn't solved by simply letting student-athletes go pro whenever they want to, potentially with the NBA's "don't hire an agent but explore the draft" window that allows pro-leaning amateurs to return.

In other words, if a student-athlete can go pro at any time, what's the necessity for this law? If you've read this entire thread, you'll know that that's been my position all along: from age 18 on, any student-athlete should be able to go pro whenever they want. But I don't see how letting them start cutting side deals "while amateurs" will improve anything, and I think a number of folks in this thread have explained why it will make them much worse. The problems related to the undue influence of agents, boosters, side-hustling assistant coaches/recruiters, etc., isn't suddenly going to be resolved just because they're legal.

But I've said my two cents and I fear we're just running in circles, so I think I've said all I have to say on this one.

Of course they go pro. They're all pro. They also play in college. Pretty much like a drama student lucky enough to get an equity card or a musician good enough to join the union. If I suggested that those accomplishments prevented the actress from being cast in the school play or in the school band, you'd look at me like I had two heads. Ditto a computer science major who works part time for Apple.

If you're in school and academically eligible, you can play. The fact that you are under contract to a pro franchise makes no difference. It couldn't be simpler.

[martyup]

If there were no rules on paying amateurs, the lure of big bucks would prevent elite HS athletes from even trying to get good grades.  Eventually, society would be filled with ignorant athletically superior people.  These people would find each other,  marry (or not), and have an average of 10.5 athletic babies.  Most of these would end up in the military because they would make good soldiers. In 100 years, the athletes would overthrow the government and install a benevolent dictatorship based on idiocracy.

[martyup]

If there were no rules on paying amateurs, the lure of big bucks would prevent elite HS athletes from even trying to get good grades.  Eventually, society would be filled with ignorant athletically superior people.  These people would find each other,  marry (or not), and have an average of 10.5 athletic babies.  Most of these would end up in the military because they would make good soldiers. In 100 years, the athletes would overthrow the government and install a benevolent dictatorship based on idiocracy.

[BostonCard]

The word you are looking at is kakistocracy, and it's a great set-up for breaking board rules, so I won't take it any further.

BC

[BostonCard]

The word you are looking at is kakistocracy, and it's a great set-up for breaking board rules, so I won't take it any further.

BC

[Genuine Realist]

The word you are looking at is kakistocracy, and it's a great set-up for breaking board rules, so I won't take it any further.

BC

My God, the word actually exists. I thought you were playing on 'cacastocracy', which needs no translation, and which I may have just invented.

[Genuine Realist]

The word you are looking at is kakistocracy, and it's a great set-up for breaking board rules, so I won't take it any further.

BC

My God, the word actually exists. I thought you were playing on 'cacastocracy', which needs no translation, and which I may have just invented.

[martyup]

It's a funny movie. 

[martyup]

It's a funny movie. 

[Phogge]

What is a .5 baby?

[Phogge]

What is a .5 baby?