Scoggins (ST): University of Minnesota regent Michael Hsu takes the NCAA to task

[Gophers_4life]

Let's just pretend that the NCAA & Universities hold fast on not compensating players outside of a scholarship and a new league forms that will pay players and focuses on 18-24 year olds as a proving ground for the NFL and with no academic requirement. How many players actually jump? How much money does NCAA football lose?

The new league would need to prove itself to high school players, that going that route is more likely (or at least as likely) to get you on an NFL team as going the major college route.

The main benefit of that route then, would be that you don't need to go to school at the same time. You can focus on football. Probably won't make much money, if really any at all. Will have to share a local apartment with teammates, get just a little bit of spending money. But you can exclusive focus on developing your game for 1-3 years.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

You are correct, you have a valid point. We will indeed see how and if this affects the NCAA's appeals efforts, when Wilken rules in favor of Alston.

In my opinion, Alston (or others) could make a very valid counter-point that the essential identity/integrity/essence of the product of major *college* football and basketball can still be preserved, and thus the more extensive popularity can be preserved, by making the players be enrolled in the school and attend class. The amateurism part of it, the receiving a scholarship part of it, is not valued by the consumers.

And another valid counter-argument: the more extensive popularity is not necessarily tied to the players themselves, but to the team's representing the schools. The argument would be that if each school's janitor's dressed up in the uniforms, it would still be popular to that school's fans.

It’s extremely important to me. I don’t watch any of the pro teams anymore. I might watch the Vikes if they’re on and I’m not busy but I’ve pretty much lost all interest in watching over the last 10 years. The free agency, the contracts, the “personalities”, all of it, has become distasteful. I can admire the tenacity of someone like Julian Edelman or the elite physicality of someone like Adrian Peterson in his prime but I get all that and more watching amateur athletics. There are a lot of intangible and tangible benefits to the current system. I do think more (a lot more) of the tv money should go towards the academic mission. That and better long term disability and health insurance coverage when necessary are the only changes I’d like to see.

 

[Gophers_4life]

It’s extremely important to me. I don’t watch any of the pro teams anymore. I might watch the Vikes if they’re on and I’m not busy but I’ve pretty much lost all interest in watching over the last 10 years. The free agency, the contracts, the “personalities”, all of it, has become distasteful. I can admire the tenacity of someone like Julian Edelman or the elite physicality of someone like Adrian Peterson in his prime but I get all that and more watching amateur athletics. There are a lot of intangible and tangible benefits to the current system. I do think more (a lot more) of the tv money should go towards the academic mission. That and better long term disability and health insurance coverage when necessary are the only changes I’d like to see.

I'm skeptical of the veracity of your claimed position. I think you'd be very happy to give up *some* of amateurism if it mean the Gophers could win a national title in football, if the alternative was to maintain pure amateurism and never win a championship.

Regardless, it is an extreme position that I don't believe most share. I believe that most of the value and most of the extensive popularity of major college sports comes from the loyalty of alumni and fans to the school brand, which often times is linked to the loyalty & provincial nature of people to their state or region, or for private schools then it stops at the school itself.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Hmm, you’re telling me how I feel about it? No, I’m quite serious.

Ultimately the scenario you want will destroy any chance MN has at a championship unless some type of draft, salary cap system is instituted.

Why would anyone outside of family, friends, and cities without pro teams follow college sports when the pros are generally faster, stronger, better? I completely disagree with your post. Minor league teams aren’t anywhere as popular as the major league sports.

 

[Gophers_4life]

Minor league teams aren’t anywhere as popular as the major league sports.

Correct.

Major college football and basketball are popular because of alumni/fan loyalty to the school brand. Not because the players are amateurs. Very few will claim to care otherwise.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Correct.

Major college football and basketball are popular because of alumni/fan loyalty to the school brand. Not because the players are amateurs. Very few will claim to care otherwise.

You’re wrong, opinion seems pretty split. I’d argue a lot of people care about the athletes and amateurism.

 

[Gophers_4life]

I’d argue a lot of people care about the athletes and amateurism.

They won’t care with their ticket buying dollars or viewership eyes. That is the crux of your hope that the SC will deny the antitrust violation for the sake of giving the NCAA preferential treatment in order to protect the popularity of their main products.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

They won’t care with their ticket buying dollars or viewership eyes. That is the crux of your hope that the SC will deny the antitrust violation for the sake of giving the NCAA preferential treatment in order to protect the popularity of their main products.

It will absolutely harm the product.

We’ve reached the “communism vs capitalism” phase of the argument. We’re no longer listening to each other’s arguments and our opinions will remain our opinions.

 

[GreasyGopher]

Hsu's point was that the value of Clayton Thorson's benefits were in the mid 70's thousand, while in-state Zach Annaxstad's benefits (including scholarship now) are less than 30 thousand.

That’s because the school was more expensive...

He’s not pocketing more of that scholarship at Northwestern than he would have if he decided to attended Illinois as mentioned in the piece.

In the end, I’m not a huge fan of this Hsu guy. He seems tone deaf from everything I’ve seen from him.

 

[Panthadad2]

I have no interest nor competence in the law, so I won’t go down the legal rabbit hole with the rest of this thread. The potential financial and business aspect of this could be fascinating though. If the schools lose the ability to enforce amateurism, it will effectively be the end of the NCAA as we know it. College sports could turn into the wild wild west.

I could see major powers in football and basketball forming their own association that allowed major player salaries and expensive investment. Other Division 1 and 2 schools could form associations where all members agree to form some sort of salary cap or limit on scholarship benefits, etc.

Even if schools formed associations that limited salaries and scholarships, there would be nothing to stop a player from soliciting outside compensation like endorsements or outright pay from boosters. Because of this, the current NCAA divisions could blur greatly. If amateurism can’t be enforced, what’s stopping a player at a well-known D3 school with wealthy alumni (say U of Chicago or MIT) from taking huge outside compensation? A D3 school with wealthy benefactors could theoretically form a juggernaut team with highly paid players.

This could get interesting.

 

[RememberMurray]

It will absolutely harm the product.

We’ve reached the “communism vs capitalism” phase of the argument. We’re no longer listening to each other’s arguments and our opinions will remain our opinions.

I'm not baiting you, but I am genuinely interested in your thoughts on this:

In the current system, players are allowed scholarship-only compensation and are forbidden from profiting from their own fame by the NCAA.

Is the current system communist or capitalist?

 

[Word]

I have no interest nor competence in the law, so I won’t go down the legal rabbit hole with the rest of this thread. The potential financial and business aspect of this could be fascinating though. If the schools lose the ability to enforce amateurism, it will effectively be the end of the NCAA as we know it. College sports could turn into the wild wild west.

I could see major powers in football and basketball forming their own association that allowed major player salaries and expensive investment. Other Division 1 and 2 schools could form associations where all members agree to form some sort of salary cap or limit on scholarship benefits, etc.

Even if schools formed associations that limited salaries and scholarships, there would be nothing to stop a player from soliciting outside compensation like endorsements or outright pay from boosters. Because of this, the current NCAA divisions could blur greatly. If amateurism can’t be enforced, what’s stopping a player at a well-known D3 school with wealthy alumni (say U of Chicago or MIT) from taking huge outside compensation? A D3 school with wealthy benefactors could theoretically form a juggernaut team with highly paid players.

This could get interesting.

I agree if players are paid it would basically end the NCAA. It would be minor league teams with schools as their names/mascots.

 

[Gophers_4life]

It will absolutely harm the product.

Zero evidence of this.

You also don't have any evidence and haven't made an argument for how it will harm the Gophers chances of competing.

 

[Gophers_4life]

That’s because the school was more expensive...

He’s not pocketing more of that scholarship at Northwestern

And if it were paychecks, with NW giving $70k/yr to him, versus the Gophers only paying out $30k per year, and the rules still required team members to be enrolled at the school .... it would be exactly the same situation.

So why is that worse than what we have now?? No one has been able to reason why it's worse, yet.

 

[Gophers_4life]

I agree if players are paid it would basically end the NCAA. It would be minor league teams with schools as their names/mascots.

Goom and gloom. No evidence. No argument.

 

[Gophers_4life]

I could see major powers in football and basketball forming their own association that allowed major player salaries and expensive investment. Other Division 1 and 2 schools could form associations where all members agree to form some sort of salary cap or limit on scholarship benefits, etc.

It wouldn't be scholarship benefits at that point, it would be paychecks. And if it was deemed illegal for the NCAA to do it, I don't see why it would be legal for the conference to do it.

But, on the other hand, it is legal and hasn't been challenged that, for example, the NFL can put hard salary caps on teams. Players negotiate with owners only in the sense of they want the caps to be set such that players are getting X% of the total revenue brought in by the NFL. So maybe that would be a valid way to think about it, for those top teams.

Even if schools formed associations that limited salaries and scholarships, there would be nothing to stop a player from soliciting outside compensation like endorsements or outright pay from boosters. Because of this, the current NCAA divisions could blur greatly. If amateurism can’t be enforced, what’s stopping a player at a well-known D3 school with wealthy alumni (say U of Chicago or MIT) from taking huge outside compensation? A D3 school with wealthy benefactors could theoretically form a juggernaut team with highly paid players.

Well first of all, none of these court cases will affect DIII. They can just go on their merry way with their rules disallowing any form of paid benefits to student-athletes.

Will be interesting to see if the Big Ten makes good on Jim Delany's threat to take the conference down to DIII, if player pay comes to reality. My guess is, no chance in hell. Certainly, schools like Ohio St, Michigan, Penn St, will leave in that case.

But schools like Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, will stick together, regardless which direction that ends up being.


As to the idea of wealthy alumni "supplementing" player pay, and that being a worry. That point was brought up before, in a different thread. I countered that argument, but the person wasn't able to response. So I will let you have a crack at it: are you worried that NFL players are getting "extra pay" from wealthy fans of certain teams? Do you think that unfairly skews the probability of talented players going to certain teams? If not, then why would it be different in major college football and basketball?

And perhaps most importantly, do you really think wealthy alumni/fans at big schools aren't ALREADY sneaking cash to players (and have been for decades)???

 

[Panthadad2]

And if it were paychecks, with NW giving $70k/yr to him, versus the Gophers only paying out $30k per year, and the rules still required team members to be enrolled at the school .... it would be exactly the same situation.

So why is that worse than what we have now?? No one has been able to reason why it's worse, yet.

I think the issue is that you're coming at this from the athlete's "college sticker price" perspective with no consideration given to actual cash flow and how the institution would view it. The $70K benefit from Northwestern scholarship athletes is fictitious. No money changes hands at this level. The "sticker price" might be $70K, but that $70K in revenue is offset by scholarship expense and nothing is ever collected. If you say the UofM at $30K "sticker price" would need to pay the $40K difference, then the UofM is out $40K in cash while Northwestern is out nothing. Lower priced schools would be motivated to increase their tuition costs for D1 athletes so they wouldn't need to pay the difference (similar to other specialty schools within the UofM that already charge more). In the end, this situation won't happen because it is unworkable.

 

[Gophers_4life]

I think the issue is that you're coming at this from the athlete's "college sticker price" perspective with no consideration given to actual cash flow and how the institution would view it. The $70K benefit from Northwestern scholarship athletes is fictitious. No money changes hands at this level. The "sticker price" might be $70K, but that $70K in revenue is offset by scholarship expense and nothing is ever collected. If you say the UofM at $30K "sticker price" would need to pay the $40K difference, then the UofM is out $40K in cash while Northwestern is out nothing. Lower priced schools would be motivated to increase their tuition costs for D1 athletes so they wouldn't need to pay the difference (similar to other specialty schools within the UofM that already charge more). In the end, this situation won't happen because it is unworkable.

First of all, it is not fictitious. Athletic departments pay the school, for the athlete's tuition, fees, etc. That's why athletic dept budgets have huge line items for player scholarship costs.

Secondly, you're changing the scenario by saying the U has to match NW's $70k. That's not what I said. I said, NW paying out $70k and the U paying out $30k. In that scenario, there is no difference.

It's really not any different than someone making 3x the salary in San Francisco than they do in Wichita. Cost of living.

 

[Panthadad2]

It wouldn't be scholarship benefits at that point, it would be paychecks. And if it was deemed illegal for the NCAA to do it, I don't see why it would be legal for the conference to do it.

But, on the other hand, it is legal and hasn't been challenged that, for example, the NFL can put hard salary caps on teams. Players negotiate with owners only in the sense of they want the caps to be set such that players are getting X% of the total revenue brought in by the NFL. So maybe that would be a valid way to think about it, for those top teams.



Well first of all, none of these court cases will affect DIII. They can just go on their merry way with their rules disallowing any form of paid benefits to student-athletes.

Will be interesting to see if the Big Ten makes good on Jim Delany's threat to take the conference down to DIII, if player pay comes to reality. My guess is, no chance in hell. Certainly, schools like Ohio St, Michigan, Penn St, will leave in that case.

But schools like Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, will stick together, regardless which direction that ends up being.


As to the idea of wealthy alumni "supplementing" player pay, and that being a worry. That point was brought up before, in a different thread. I countered that argument, but the person wasn't able to response. So I will let you have a crack at it: are you worried that NFL players are getting "extra pay" from wealthy fans of certain teams? Do you think that unfairly skews the probability of talented players going to certain teams? If not, then why would it be different in major college football and basketball?

And perhaps most importantly, do you really think wealthy alumni/fans at big schools aren't ALREADY sneaking cash to players (and have been for decades)???

I'm not worried that outside compensation would happen...because it definitely would happen. My point is that the NCAA in its current form would be destroyed. Maybe that's OK if there's a new better alternative, but money could also contribute to decline. Sports without good competition are not interesting. It's not fun to see the juggernaut teams destroy lesser teams with ease. For example, I think the 85 scholarship limit in football evened the playing field somewhat and increased competition; which made college football more interesting. The NFL continues to be popular partly because of the parity that's enforced.

I'm not naive. There's huge outside money in college athletics already. Right now, all that outside money is being pumped into multi-million dollar facilities (which directly benefit athletes) through donations. Those facilities attract athletes. If that money was directed straight to attracting athletes instead of facilities, a whole new process would develop. Player non-compete agreements with stiff penalties for violations would become prevalent. Agents would get involved at a young age. The involvement of players families would increase exponentially as they direct their 17-18 year-old kid's financial future (often to the parent's benefit, not the athlete). Direct player compensation would be a massive change and I'm not sure it would be sustainable for many schools. As I said in an earlier post, the impact of this situation could be fascinating to watch.

 

[Word]

Goom and gloom. No evidence. No argument.

A paid team below the major league level? Sounds like a minor league team to me.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Zero evidence of this.

You also don't have any evidence and haven't made an argument for how it will harm the Gophers chances of competing.

If you can’t figure out why these things could happen it’s not worth my time. I’ve already spelled out all the legal issues and anti-competitive issues and questions in earlier posts here and elsewhere. You’ve reached the intentionally obtuse stage.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

I'm not baiting you, but I am genuinely interested in your thoughts on this:

In the current system, players are allowed scholarship-only compensation and are forbidden from profiting from their own fame by the NCAA.

Is the current system communist or capitalist?

That figure of speech was only meant to illustrate that ideologues will never agree. It’s not worth continuing the argument.

The NFL currently bars member teams from drafting/acquiring elite players unless they are 3 years removed from high school. Is that restraint of trade?

Those that want players to be paid would be better served by tearing down that arbitrary and capricious restriction.

 

[GreasyGopher]

NM.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Salary cap restraint of trade?

Ban on drafting high schoolers/< 3 yrs removed - restraint of trade?

Legal minds: go.

 

[RememberMurray]

Salary cap restraint of trade?

Ban on drafting high schoolers/< 3 yrs removed - restraint of trade?

Legal minds: go.

Isn't the draft itself a restraint of trade? In a true free market, teams could sign any player they like. Players could go to the team of their choice.

How about league rules on roster limits? That's not a free market model. In a truly free market, teams could sign as many players as they like.

The salary cap? Franchise tags? Revenue sharing (especially TV money)? None of those are present in a free market. Where's the competition?

And don't forget publicly-funded stadiums.

It all sounds suspiciously like socialism to me.

 

[Panthadad2]

Isn't the draft itself a restraint of trade? In a true free market, teams could sign any player they like. Players could go to the team of their choice.

How about league rules on roster limits? That's not a free market model. In a truly free market, teams could sign as many players as they like.

The salary cap? Franchise tags? Revenue sharing (especially TV money)? None of those are present in a free market. Where's the competition?

And don't forget publicly-funded stadiums.

It all sounds suspiciously like socialism to me.

These compensation-based items are not socialism nor a restraint on free trade. The NFL is set up as a collection of independently owned franchises that operate under a set of rules. Players willingly (eagerly?) enter into contracts with those franchises to follow those rules and receive substantial compensation in return.

Nobody is stopping other investors from starting their own competing leagues/franchises. If those competing leagues want to go with without any draft or compensation regulations, go for it (hint: they wouldn't last long).

 

[RememberMurray]

These compensation-based items are not socialism nor a restraint on free trade. The NFL is set up as a collection of independently owned franchises that operate under a set of rules. Players willingly (eagerly?) enter into contracts with those franchises to follow those rules and receive substantial compensation in return.

Nobody is stopping other investors from starting their own competing leagues/franchises. If those competing leagues want to go with without any draft or compensation regulations, go for it (hint: they wouldn't last long).

The league enforces a salary cap. Teams are restricted from spending over that cap. The fact that they voluntarily agree (collude) to that restriction doesn't change the fact that it is, in fact, a restriction — a restriction on free trade.

Now, in a free marketplace, teams could spend as much as they choose. And in a free marketplace, the players would be free to sign with the highest bidder. Teams would be compelled to compete with each other for the best players, rather than collude with each other to artificially keep salaries down.

Then there are the other anti-free market devices that the league uses to artificially keep wages low, such as franchise tags, restricted free agency signing time periods and the big one: the college draft.

The league shrewdly uses these devices — which are the exact opposite of free market policies — to prevent the existence of a true competitive marketplace. That's beyond obvious.

And, yes, of course any competing league, attempting to operate under a true free market system, would be unable to compete with the NFL's wage suppression model. That's exactly the point! That's why the NFL chooses not to operate under free market principles.

There are reasons that the NFL has to have an anti-trust exemption in order to operate as they do.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

So, knowing that the courts smile upon restraint of trade/free marketplaces when it please them, and it pleases them to have a competitive NFL league, how does this affect the arguments regarding the NCAA and it’s desire to produce a competitive league?

The NFL is different in that the players are classified as employees, and are able to unionize. What would it take for NCAA players to be reclassified as employees? How could the schools counter that? There are legal tests for determining employment status. You do the research and see what turns up.

 

[Gophers_4life]

I'm not worried that outside compensation would happen...because it definitely would happen. My point is that the NCAA in its current form would be destroyed. Maybe that's OK if there's a new better alternative, but money could also contribute to decline. Sports without good competition are not interesting. It's not fun to see the juggernaut teams destroy lesser teams with ease. For example, I think the 85 scholarship limit in football evened the playing field somewhat and increased competition; which made college football more interesting. The NFL continues to be popular partly because of the parity that's enforced.

I'm not naive. There's huge outside money in college athletics already. Right now, all that outside money is being pumped into multi-million dollar facilities (which directly benefit athletes) through donations. Those facilities attract athletes. If that money was directed straight to attracting athletes instead of facilities, a whole new process would develop. Player non-compete agreements with stiff penalties for violations would become prevalent. Agents would get involved at a young age. The involvement of players families would increase exponentially as they direct their 17-18 year-old kid's financial future (often to the parent's benefit, not the athlete). Direct player compensation would be a massive change and I'm not sure it would be sustainable for many schools. As I said in an earlier post, the impact of this situation could be fascinating to watch.

I for one frankly don't care if the NCAA is "destroyed". I care about the Big Ten. Worst comes to worse, I'm very, very happy tuning into BTN and watching Big Ten schools play each other. I think they can come to an agreement with the schools of the PAC -- like minded, high research, high academic schools, that aren't cheating like southern schools. It can go back to the old days.

There is nothing wrong with player compensation, in of itself, in the slightest. Schools already compensate players. The actual thing that some here are worried about is a significant increase in player compensation. May or may not happen.

 

[Gophers_4life]

I’ve already spelled out all the legal issues and anti-competitive issues and questions in earlier posts here and elsewhere.

I've never seen any post of yours where you make a reasonabe argument that allowing player compensation in other forms than, and of greater monetary value than, an FCOA scholarship, will harm the Gophers chances of competing (against whom??). Please link to it. I don't think it exists.