There are a number of opinions both for and against paying players/relaxing rules on amateurism. It's a difficult subject exactly because there is a mix. The athletes are students. The schools, while valuing success, do not want that core fact to change. They are faced with the difficult fact though that wins and losses in football/basketball very much effect their schools brand and long term revenue. Because of that, they rely very highly on having good players and strong skill sets are often worth way more than the scholarships given out by the school. In that sense, the athletes are acting much more like employees than students.

With the idea of preserving as much aneurism as possible, while also recognizing that employees should have a competitive market for their skills (with more reward possible for greater skills), I purpose the following compromise:

1. Every student will have a trust fund established and monitored by the NCAA. The fund (outside of a few established exceptions), can have money deposited at any time, but only taken out 3 years after a students has started college or when he/she has graduates/quits school, whichever comes later.

2. Students will be allowed to get endorsements and/or accept booster donations, but all money must be deposited into the student's fund rather than directly given to the player. Everything must go through the school and be monitored.

3. The only exceptions to the rule would be a for hardship cases and/or established and documented exceptions (for instance, possibly paying to send parents to a road game).

4. Organizations could contribute to broader funds to fund all athletes on a sport at a given school which would be divided and deposited into everyone's accounts.

5. Any other form of additional benefit would still be prohibited and an NCAA violation.

I think, long term, this approach balances the dual student/employee role of athletes for the big sports. It would result in fewer direct donations to schools with more money going directly to players. That would probably result in fewer facility upgrades and less money for coaches, but that seems a more fair set-up.

(06-24-2014 11:36 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  There are a number of opinions both for and against paying players/relaxing rules on amateurism. It's a difficult subject exactly because there is a mix. The athletes are students. The schools, while valuing success, do not want that core fact to change. They are faced with the difficult fact though that wins and losses in football/basketball very much effect their schools brand and long term revenue. Because of that, they rely very highly on having good players and strong skill sets are often worth way more than the scholarships given out by the school. In that sense, the athletes are acting much more like employees than students.

With the idea of preserving as much aneurism as possible, while also recognizing that employees should have a competitive market for their skills (with more reward possible for greater skills), I purpose the following compromise:

1. Every student will have a trust fund established and monitored by the NCAA. The fund (outside of a few established exceptions), can have money deposited at any time, but only taken out 3 years after a students has started college or when he/she has graduates/quits school, whichever comes later.

2. Students will be allowed to get endorsements and/or accept booster donations, but all money must be deposited into the student's fund rather than directly given to the player. Everything must go through the school and be monitored.

3. The only exceptions to the rule would be a for hardship cases and/or established and documented exceptions (for instance, possibly paying to send parents to a road game).

4. Organizations could contribute to broader funds to fund all athletes on a sport at a given school which would be divided and deposited into everyone's accounts.

5. Any other form of additional benefit would still be prohibited and an NCAA violation.

I think, long term, this approach balances the dual student/employee role of athletes for the big sports. It would result in fewer direct donations to schools with more money going directly to players. That would probably result in fewer facility upgrades and less money for coaches, but that seems a more fair set-up.

I only have a few minutes to comment right now, so I'll reserve my judgement on the parts not bolded. But here's a suggestion. Funds can only be withdrawn after the athlete earns a degree from the school he played for when the funds were earned. If that's after he finishes his pro career, fine. But if he leaves early and never comes back, he forfeits the money.

If a music major was selected to perform at Carnegie Hall with a symphony and get paid for it, they wouldn't have to wait for the money. If a dance major gets a side gig at a theme park and gets paid for it, they wouldn't have to wait for the money. So why make athletes wait for theirs? Giving them immediate access to money that they could earn through sponsorships or endorsements (or even appearance fees) is only right. I wholeheartedly think that the schools should not pay them beyond scholarship and education-related expenses, but that the fault in the system is not letting them profit from their own likeness. That's why I like the Olympic model. They allow the athletes to earn what they can outside the framework of the competition, yet they don't pay the athletes for competing. I think that would ultimately be the best way for the collegiate model to run.

There are two issues at play:

1. Compensation for use of likeness. I don't believe there is nearly as much money here as the O'Bannon plaintiffs want to believe. Remember July 2012 to June 2013 TAMU's entire sales of jerseys of all kinds totalled less than $60,000 and the TAMU brand has some distinct value in that. So Johnny Football even if he got half would have made less than $20,000 since not every jersey sold was his or even a football jersey.

The bigger question is use of likeness, selling photographs etc., while in school. If you go back to the Bloom case the courts noted that risk of people cheating the system was higher than what the kids could likely make in upholding the NCAA ban on selling likeness for any purpose related to athletic achievement.

2. Free market salaries. Again I think people supporting the players are overly optimistic about the sort of money that is available. NFL minimum is $420,000 this year but the entire NFL from rookies to ten year veterans is only enough players to stock 18 college teams. Outside of a very few elite players, players tend to become more and more a fungible good. The difference between the 10th best receiver coming out of high school and the best is probably greater than the difference between #11 and #50. Remember also there is a high bust rate if you compare the highest rated recruits to their performance. Only about 30% or so chance that a high school all-american will be a college all-american. Because college players have a limited shelf life of no more than 5 years on roster it makes little sense to invest very deeply in roster. Further it is an all free agent marketplace where top athletes want to be part of the big time experience as well as help themselves toward the marketplace where there is much more money. A player offered $50,000 by Troy may very well think the Alabama experience is better and worth playing for $25,000.